1951-12-04

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised certain questions regarding the commission investigating the proposed South Saskatchewan project, and I told him I wished to get further information before attempting a complete reply. The government has given no instructions to the commission other than those contained in the order in council in which the reference has to do with the two following questions: whether the economic and social returns to the Canadian people on the investment in the proposed South Saskatchewan river project-central Saskatchewan development-would be commensurate with the cost thereof, and whether the said project represents the most profitable and desirable use which can be made of the physical resources involved.
All the information about the project that had been tabled in the house was placed at the disposal of the commission, and of course they also have access to the various departments where they can see any other material about the project that may have been gathered at any time in those departments. I am informed that there is no ground for the supposition that there is any interruption of their work, that as a matter of fact they are having another meeting in Ottawa next week, and that the matter is actively under consideration by them for the purpose of making their report on the two points set out in the order in council by which the commission was established.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Thanking the Prime Minister, might I ask him whether the actual location of the dam on the river has been finally determined?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As to whether or not these documents determine one location and one location only, I think the hon. member will have to do what I would have to do, and that is consult the documents. They speak for themselves.. It was my understanding that there was a precise location indicated in those reports, but I would not want to assert that
they could not be construed otherwise. I am not an engineer, but two of the members of the commission are engineers, and I would not want to attempt to put any final construction upon the reports. I took them to mean that a precise location was indicated therein.
[Later: 1


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre, do I understand that no instruction or authority has been given the commission to recommend a site for the South Saskatchewan dam, other than the site recommended in the various reports that the government has received?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: No other instructions have been given but those expressed in the order in council. I have been unofficially informed that the question has been raised and is under discussion between the commissioners, as to whether or not the second part of the reference gives them authority to consider whether that site would be the best use of the physical advantages. I have not any official information about that, but it may be an interpretation that would not contradict the terms of reference. I can only say that when it was drawn in those terms that is not what was intended. Of course, it is not what was intended which should bind the commissioners, but the actual language which was used.



ST. LAWRENCE POWER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND ONTARIO GOVERNMENTS

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to approve an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario, respecting power development in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river; and to provide further for the transfer to the government of Ontario of the administration of certain lands or property pursuant to the agreement.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? I regret that I have not had the opportunity of giving him very much notice of it. Has the minister been advised of an industrial dispute at the Ford Motor Company in Windsor, Ontario, and has he any statement to make at this time?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: As to the first question, Mr. Speaker, I have not been advised officially on the matter, but I am acquainted with certain aspects of it through my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and through our own offices in Windsor.
As to the second part of the question, as the hon. member knows this dispute is a matter which is entirely within the authority of labour legislation of the province of Ontario.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (Si. John's West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the uncertainty as to the status of Newfoundlanders who make application for the old age pension, to which reference was made in the debate on the old age security measure in the other place last evening, and in view of the fact that reports of the debate have been sent to Newfoundland, will the minister be good enough to say whether or not residence in Newfoundland is equivalent to residence in any other part of Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question. As he says, this matter was raised in the other place, and in view of its importance perhaps I should deal with it here. The position briefly is that there is no difference between the status of applicants for old age security benefits in Newfoundland and applicants in other parts of Canada. The Old Age Security Act, together with the Old Age Assistance Act which was passed in June of this year, requires that in order to be eligible for benefit an applicant must be able to show that he has lived continuously for the last 20 years in Canada.
Section 9 of the Interpretation Act states that every act of the parliament of Canada
[Mr. Chevrier.)

shall, unless a contrary intention appears, apply to the whole of Canada. Where the word "Canada" is used in the present bill it means "Canada as presently constituted". Canada as presently constituted includes the province of Newfoundland. Furthermore, by the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada it is provided that, subject to the terms of union, the province of Newfoundland must be treated, in so far as welfare and public services are concerned, on the same basis and subject to the same terms and conditions as in the case of the other provinces of Canada. The terms of union were approved by this parliament, by the parliament of the United Kingdom and by the government in Newfoundland, and are part of the constitution of Canada. "Residence in Canada", under the terms of this bill, and under the terms of other statutes of Canada, means "residence in the territory now known as Canada".
Newfoundland is part of Canada. It follows therefore that anyone who has lived for 20 years in any part of what is now Canada can qualify in accordance with the provisions respecting residence set forth in the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act. The same applies to the residence provisions in the Blind Persons Act, although there, of course, the residence period is somewhat shorter.
The hon. member therefore can be assured that, for applicants in Newfoundland, their residence in that province-either before or after April 1, 1949, the date of union-will be regarded under these new enactments as being residence in Canada.
I may add that for greater certainty it is proposed to pass a regulation under the provisions of section 6 (d) of the Old Age Security Act covering this specific point. Section 6 (d) of the Old Age Security Act gives the governor in council power to make regulations defining residence in Canada and defining intervals of absence from Canada preceding an application that shall be deemed not to have interrupted residence in Canada.
Justice has given the opinion that the governor in council has, under this provision, authority to make a regulation providing that residence in Newfoundland prior to the date of union be taken to be residence in Canada. We propose therefore to include such a provision in the regulations to be passed under the Old Age Security Act as well as in the regulations to be passed under the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act.


William Joseph Browne: I thank the minister for his reply, and while I agree with the first part of it wholeheartedly I feel that the regulation does not seem to be necessary.



METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Will the Minister of Transport state whether Brockville or some other municipality in the area will be made a weather forecasting station for the upper St. Lawrence valley?


Lionel Chevrier: I know that there is no weather reporting station in that area at the moment.


Mr. Cruickshank:: It rains there all the time.


Lionel Chevrier: No; I should think the weather is excellent there. I shall ask my officers to inquire as to the suitability of a weather forecasting station in that area.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like now to deal with a question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on November 30. He inquired whether or not any recommendation had been made as the result of the committee meeting with the general chairman and the vice-presidents of the Canadian National Railways to increase the basic pension of $25 a month for railway employees. I must say I have received no recommendation thus far from the committee or the officers of the Canadian National Railways. I am, therefore, not in a position to answer the question. When I have received such a recommendation, I shall be glad to impart its contents to the house.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me this question:
Has the government received representations from the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commis-' sioners asking that the Alexander Avenue wharf, on the Red river at Winnipeg, be enlarged to meet the increased demand for dockage facilities? Will consideration be given to extending this wharf at an early date?
The answer is as follows: By letter of September 13, 1951, the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners made representations for enlarged facilities at the
Public Printing and Stationery Act Alexander Avenue wharf, Winnipeg. The enlargement of this wharf is being studied by the department, but full information must be available whether the arrival of freight boats from lake Winnipeg cannot be scattered throughout the week instead of the peak loads at week ends, as at present, resulting in wharf congestion.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY-DEEP WATER- WAY BETWEEN MONTREAL AND LAKE ERIE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notice of motion-The Minister of Transport-Resolved, that it is expedient, for the purpose of providing a deep waterway between Montreal and lake Erie, to create a corporation to be called "The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority" with power, inter alia, to expropriate; to construct, maintain and operate all necessary works; to borrow amounts not exceeding three hundred million dollars; to establish tariffs of tolls and to employ such officers and employees as may be required for the purposes of the authority.
Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, before the resolution is put to the house, I have a request to make. It was understood that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would speak for the opposition on this resolution. I understand that he is on his way back from the western provinces and that he has been delayed for a few hours. I would ask the house if it would agree that we delay the putting of this resolution until he arrives, which I understand will be about five o'clock. I am told that he has a prepared statement to make in answer to the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I think it would only be courtesy that we agree to have this matter postponed for some time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY ACT


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of second reading it was understood that further information would be made available. That information has been made available. Particularly in view of the fact that the whole question of revolving credits is going to be dealt with in the new Financial Administration Act, I think there is nothing further that I wish to say in respect of this bill at the present time.

Public Printing and Stationery Act


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two questions that have occurred to me since we had the earlier debate on this matter. I recognize that we are now at the third reading stage. We have passed the committee stage where it is possible to indulge in the question and answer method of procedure, but I should like to put a question or two to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will be given the opportunity to reply.
From the document that was tabled the other day I note that we have been given a break-down of the amounts owed by the various departments. As at November 22, 1951, they totalled $3,788,752. That was the amount due to the printing bureau by the various departments of the government. In response to our request the break-down of that figure was given not only by departments but by various months. It is to be noted that the greater part of those arrears are for recent months such as September and October, but there are some rather large items that have been standing for a good many months. I do not think that any of us over here on this side, being reasonable people, question the delay in paying accounts that are only a month or two old. But it would be interesting to have a comment as to why some departments are paid up except for the last month or two whereas some other departments, such as the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and perhaps others have accounts going right back to January of this year. In that connection, can the Secretary of State tell us whether any of these arrears are for supplies of printing which the departments refused to accept? Was any of this printing sent back because it was not satisfactory in any way? Would that be an explanation for any of these arrears? If so, I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State would tell us to what extent that is the case. I would also be interested in knowing how much of this outstanding debt is for letterpress printing and how much is for offset printing.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, it would have been easier to handle these questions had we had this document when we were still in committee of the whole. But from this side of the house we agreed to allow that stage to go by provided we could get information of this kind on third reading. I hope that the house will grant permission to the Secretary of State to close the debate, although that is not usual on third reading, in order that he might answer these questions.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker-
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister speaks, I should point out to the house that he is entitled to speak only once on third reading of the bill. In view of the fact that he made no statement on the motion for third reading I think I should allow him to speak now, but this will be the only opportunity that will be given to him to speak. I do not think that, on third reading, the house should take part in the kind of debate which has been carried on in committee of the whole.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have not much to add at this stage of the bill, except to say that the questions which have been asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are of such a detailed nature that I could not possibly be expected to have all of them available. If he had telephoned me some time before the house met, I could possibly have obtained the information for him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We really did not expect that this order of business would be reached until tomorrow.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: As to the arrears that are of comparatively long standing, running back into last May, I am not able to give him exact information upon each one but my recollection is that, in connection with one or two, there is some question as to whether the amount should be charged to the particular department or to the king's printer's department itself. As to the question of the amount to be charged against the ordinary type of printing and the amount against offset printing, I have not the faintest idea at the moment. But I can get the information for my hon. friend at any time, if he desires it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say to the Secretary of State that I will place my questions on the order paper and try to get the answers in that way.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sluari S. Garson (Minister of Justice! moved the second reading of Bill No. 30, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Rank and salary of registrar.
John George Diefenbaker: Now that the supreme court is the final court of appeal, some consideration should be given to enlarging the scope of the grounds for appeal to that court

in order to enable citizens who have had their fundamental freedoms or rights interfered with unjustly to have a right of appeal to what is now the foot of the throne. As the law now stands, generally speaking appeals are limited almost exclusively to cases measured by money value, except in cases of leave; and leave cannot be granted in respect of matters that are primarily concerned with such fundamental freedoms of the individual as religion, speech and the like, unless in appeal in a criminal case in which there has been a dissent, or in which there is a direct conflict between the judgment of the court appealed from and that of a court of equal jurisdiction.
The law permits the continued existence of conditions that may constitute a denial of fundamental freedom, because the person who suffers personally from the alleged departure from one or other of the fundamental freedoms has no appeal to the supreme court. Now that the supreme court is the final court I should like to suggest that something should be done to assure -the right of the individual everywhere in this dominion, regardless of whether it is a matter of monetary value or not, where a great principle in the field of fundamental freedom is at stake, to have the right of appeal to that court. He has an appeal under the criminal law, as I have already mentioned. He has an appeal in matters of certiorari; but where there is a direct invasion of his rights in consequence of municipal laws he has not, even when a citizen's fundamental freedoms are denied or abridged. I suggest that consideration should be given to placing in the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada the power, by leave, to grant any Canadian who claims to have been wrongfully deprived of any one of his fundamental freedoms the right of appeal to that court. By circumscribing the right of appeal to -the extent that the court itself would be required to give leave, the abuse or unnecessary use of the right of appeal would thereby be avoided.
Over the years I have advocated a bill of rights for Canadians in order to assure the preservation and maintenance of our fundamental freedoms within the confines of our constitution. To assure those freedoms I have advocated either a statute or a constitutional amendment, wherein will be set forth the personal freedoms that are ours and in order to assure that wherever they are invaded unlawfully the individual shall have a right of recourse to the courts. As it is now, he has not that right. I have suggested to other ministers of justice that, in order to determine -the division of authority as
Supreme Court Act
between the federal and provincial jurisdictions, the Minister of Justice should submit to the Supreme Court of Canada a bill of rights such as was drafted by the Senate committee two years ago, with a view to ascertaining by appropriate questions what, if any, of the fundamental freedoms are within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.
Canadians should and must have equal rights before the law. I believe that -the time has come to extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada so as to enable an individual, whose fundamental freedoms have been denied or abrogated, to have an appeal, with the leave of a supreme court judge, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Secondly, with a view to assuring the preservation of democracy within our country, thereby showing the world the superiority of democracy over its very antithesis, communism, everything should be done to maintain, develop and expand the principles of freedom and liberty, and -to that end a major step forward would be the submission to the Supreme Court of Canada of the question of the respective jurisdiction of the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures in respect of the fundamental freedoms.
The supreme court is composed of men whose contribution to the jurisprudence and the development of this country is worthy of the highest traditions of our judiciary. Its judges are in a position to maintain and protect the liberty of the subject, provided that there is a right of appeal to that court. A right of appeal that is circumscribed by financial or monetary considerations is not one that will protect and preserve the rights of the individual when his fundamental freedoms have been encroached upon.
At the same time I should like to make a third suggestion. It has to do with the right of the subject to sue the -crown. As the law now stands, the power the Minister of Justice had to deny the right of the subject to sue the crown for negligence and contract was removed last year. However, the crown in Canada continues to enjoy a position far superior to the subject and to the citizen.
In the United Kingdom the subject is a sovereign in his own right, in that he possesses equal rights with the king in the courts, subject always to two qualifications, namely that if he is a member of the armed forces he cannot sue for wrongful orders given him, and no citizen can sue the Post Office Department for neglect or for other wrong arising out of the transmission of mail.
Apart from those two limitations, before the courts the citizen has equal rights with

Supreme Court Act
the crown. And I suggest that the disabilities of the individual in his right to sue the crown which places the citizen in a position of subservience to the crown as to rights and obligations should be abolished to the same extent as in Great Britain.	.
The minister will recall that within the last few weeks in the city of Ottawa, during the course of an argument in a case in the exchequer court, Mr. Justice Thor son referred to the amplitude of the rights the crown possessed. If the press report was correct, he stated that a servant of the crown could take a citizen's motor car and dump it into the river, and there would be no right on the part of the person aggrieved as against the crown, under the law as it now is.
Such an anamolous condition cannot and does not exist in the United Kingdom and should not in Canada. In the United Kingdom the subject enjoys equality with the crown in the courts of law, subject to the exceptions I mentioned before.
These are three general submissions which I make to the Minister of Justice who, I am pleased to say, has taken interest in this subject, that merits the approval of the bar of this country. I ask him to give consideration to these submissions so as to preserve, maintain and extend the field of liberty of the individual; and provide access to the courts for every Canadian; and assure that the crown shall no longer enjoy any unequal privileges over the individual, in the courts of law.


Mr. Garson:: I wonder if before my hon.
friend takes his seat he would cite some concrete examples of the lack of access to the courts or the lack of fundamental freedoms enjoyed by any Canadians about which he has spoken, in order that I may deal with those concrete cases when I reply.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: I could quote many
examples. I do not wish to bring in anything that would make this discussion controversial in any respect. However, I would point out one instance which comes to our attention frequently, and that is in connection with orders in council passed by the government which deny the subject the right of recourse to the courts, regardless of illegal interferences that have taken place.
I .would mention the order in council dealing with the radium development in northern Alberta. It is all very well to say that that was immediately after the war. It provided uncontrolled power to a controller and gave him a position of superiority above the law such as no one should enjoy. It gave to him the power to do anything legally or illegally; and no matter

what he might do, the individual claiming to be wronged would not have recourse to the courts.
Before the Foreign Exchange Control Act was in the form of a statute it operated under regulations and orders in council. There was provision in those orders in council that, where an individual's rights were determined by an official in the department, there was no right of recourse to the courts to the person wronged. I have always taken strong objection to placing citizens of the country in a position of being under the direct domination of an official of the crown, without such persons having the right of appeal against unjust orders.
When the statute was passed, the Foreign Exchange Control Act, provision was made whereby the individual should have the right to proceed against any government official who did wrong in connection with the administration of the act. But with the limitation that such individual, although he is suffering loss of, we will say, $5,000, can recover in the courts only nominal damages, in other words $1, and without costs.
In effect the statute gives the citizen the right to his day in court but it is merely an ephemeral right. It means not only that he must suffer the loss of the damage directly attributable to the wrongful act, but he cannot secure his costs of action even when he is successful.
There has been a trend in the direction of providing that decisions made by governmental boards as a result of which individuals who suffer injustice therefrom are denied any appeal to the courts. I think the time has come, in order to extend the abiding principles of democracy within our country- except when the security of the state is uppermost, and when the ordinary process.es of democracy have to give place to the need of action-for a declaration by parliament that never again shall an individual's right of appeal to the courts be denied.
I thank the minister for giving me this opportunity to mention one or two instances in a purely non-partisan matter for the purpose of bringing to his attention the need of giving to the subject in Canada, for the preservation of his fundamental freedoms, rights equal to those actually possessed by British citizens within the United Kingdom.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the matter before the committee at the present time is whether the ceiling imposed by statute upon the salary of the registrar of the supreme court shall be raised. I do not think that even by the widest stretch of the imagination would it be possible to trace any relationship

between that question and the matters which the hon. member for Lake Centre has just been discussing. However, in view of the fact that this is a short session and it will not be possible for the hon. member to raise these matters on the estimates of the Department of Justice I am quite willing, if you will permit me, to discuss, on their merits and as briefly as I can, the points which my hon. friend has raised.
For many years the hon. member has been a great proponent of fundamental freedoms and of a bill of rights which as he says would preserve them. As I understand his proposition today, it is that in respect of the Supreme Court Act, which I am sure he will agree is largely procedural in character and does not deal with substantive law, we should provide by some amendment to that statute a recourse to the supreme court for the purpose of protecting these human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I put it to you and to the hon. gentleman that what he is really talking about is not a matter of procedural law that could be secured by an amendment to the Supreme Court Act. He is talking about a matter of substantive law. If, as he contends, the law of Canada is at present defective in the matter of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, what is required is something which he himself has advocated on a number of occasions-a bill of rights.
Presuming that the law as it stands at the present time is defective-which I think is open to considerable doubt-I had hoped that some time I might have the opportunity of discussing the resolution for a bill of rights which has been almost permanently upon the order paper in the name of my hon. friend- it can be remedied only by some substantive provision of law which in the nature of things cannot take the form of an amendment to the procedural sections of the Supreme Court Act.
The point here is not whether the supreme court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from any courts which are junior to it. I think my hon. friend will agree that with the amendments which were introduced coincident with the abolition of appeals to the privy council, the jurisdiction of the supreme court to hear almost any kind of appeal from any court in Canada is now pretty much unlimited and that therefore we cannot meet the case which my hon. friend states by attempting to enlarge the jurisdiction of the supreme court upon appeal because they already have wide-open jurisdiction on appeal. If the law be defective it can be changed only by the
Supreme Court Act
method which I have always understood the hon. member to have been advocating, namely, by a bill of rights.
The hon. member says that he would like to have this question of whether human rights and fundamental freedoms fall within the federal or provincial jurisdiction submitted to the supreme court.


John George Diefenbaker: I said to submit the draft bill of rights which was prepared by the Senate committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, submit the draft bill of rights which lists the various human rights and fundamental freedoms one after another to the supreme court to have that court determine which of those human rights and fundamental freedoms so listed fall within federal jurisdiction, on the one hand, or within provincial jurisdiction, on the other.
These suggestions, which my hon. friend has just now made in respect to a matter which is completely irrelevant to them, I must confess took me completely by surprise so I am not quite as well equipped to discuss them as I would have been if we had proceeded, for example, under the motion which stands in the name of my hon. friend on the order paper. I am just speaking offhand, but I should think that the supreme court would find some difficulty in deciding whether a subject like the liberty of a person fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction. The habeas corpus acts are provincial acts, for example, while the criminal law is a federal statute. I think my hon. friend will agree that the question of whether one or another aspect of the freedom of the person fell within provincial or federal jurisdiction would depend upon the substantive statute which was being considered by the supreme court at that time and it would be a matter of the greatest possible difficulty for the supreme court to consider human rights and fundamental freedoms in the form of abstract statements.
Therefore, as I said the other night and with great respect, I would be inclined to think that a much more satisfactory way of arriving at the objective which my hon. friend has in mind, if he considered any of the present protections which are enjoyed in the way of human rights and fundamental principles to be in any way defective, would be for him to introduce a private bill to amend the law in that respect. After having taken the precautions, which I know my hon. friend would take, to make sure that the matter fell within federal jurisdiction, he would then have a legal issue for presentation to the supreme court which would be much more satisfactory than the submission of the Hon. Mr. Roebuck's resolution.
1564

Supreme Court Act


John George Diefenbaker: The possibility of a
private bill introduced by a private member becoming law would depend upon the consent of the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That might be quite so, but if my hon. friend with his usual eloquence and persuasiveness were able to convince the administration that it was good law, I am sure we would be only too glad to accommodate him.
The reason I asked my hon. friend whether there were any specific cases of lack of freedom that he objected to was that when one examines these phrases, like freedom of the press for example, and the steps that should be taken to protect them, I think he will find that freedom of the press is very widespread in this country. If I am not mistaken in my recollection, on the only occasion when an attempt was made by one of the provincial legislatures of this country to abridge it, the matter, in spite of what my hon. friend has said today, did get to the Supreme Court of Canada, and as I recall it, it was held that the legislation in question was unconstitutional.


John George Diefenbaker: It got to the supreme court by a submission made by the minister of justice, did it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, quite, which form of submission, as I am sure my hon. friend will be the first to agree, is still available as a means of getting matters of that sort to the supreme court.
When he speaks of this one concrete case he was able to offer by way of objecting to provisions in an order in council dealing with uranium, I am sure that upon meditation he would agree there is really no invasion of any human rights and fundamental freedoms if the democratically elected representatives of the people in parliament assembled, for reasons which seem adequate to them, clothe the governor general in council with certain powers which he proceeds to exercise in a reasonable manner in order to meet very dangerous circumstances. In connection with the particular matter to which he referred, I am sure that after reflection he will not then say that the courts and the remedies therein are being made unavailable to citizens of the country.
I am sure my hon. friend is aware that it is not only in respect of these orders in council passed in the federal field, and which he will agree are passed within the limit of the powers granted by parliament, but also in the provincial sphere that examples of this sort of thing are to be found. I agree with him that provisions of that sort should not be inserted in an order in council or in a statute except for very strong reasons, but I should think .if the reason with respect to the matter

of uranium which he raised was the withholding of information from the mortal enemies of the country we might very properly consider putting a clause of that sort in a bill or order in council. If we did so I cannot see what connection could be drawn between it and the fundamental freedoms of which he speaks. While there may be differences of opinion between the administration and the opposition upon the matter, I think if any allowance is made for a conscientious approach to their duties on the part of the ministers it will be found upon analysis in all these cases that it is for the protection of the fundamental freedoms of the majority of the people that provisions of that sort are inserted in statutes.
In any event, I cannot see what advantage there would be in an amendment to the Supreme Court Act such as he suggests because these provisions in the statute or order in council are either constitutional or unconstitutional. If they are not constitutional I am sure my hon. friend will agree that at the present time the subject has full rights and a complete remedy in that he may take an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada which will declare the order in council or statute, as the case may be, to be beyond the power of the legislative body or cabinet which passed it.
His third point was that he wanted the rights of the subject to sue the crown extended. Surely he will agree this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court Act. It might perhaps be better raised under the next bill to come up having to do with the exchequer court. However, in this connection I can only repeat what I said on an occasion when it was much more in order than at the present moment, that in abolishing fiats as we did at the last session in, those cases which are now covered in the form of substantive law in the Exchequer Court Act we were taking care of the enormous majority of cases which are likely to arise against the crown.
I am sure my hon. friend, who has had a wide practice in these matters, will agree that when one takes care of negligence actions against the crown one takes care, I should think, of at least 95 per cent of all cases likely to arise between the crown and the subject. Like the hon. member, I have not seen any reports than those contained in the newspapers, of the case that took place the other day concerning certain events in Hull. Like him I am not in the habit of forming my legal opinion in matters of that sort upon the basis of newspaper reports. Therefore I must say that I cannot comment upon that particular case. I appreciate the references which the

hon. gentleman made to myself. I appreciate his interest in this subject. I am very glad he raised these points, and I shall be pleased to take them under consideration, but I must enter the proviso that it seems to me that what is required, if anything be required at all, is not a procedural amendment to the Supreme Court Act but a matter of substantive law in a form which I had always thought my hon. friend had systematically advocated.


John George Diefenbaker: As an addition to the last statement made by the minister, I should like to say that at all times together with a bill of rights I have advocated the extension of the right of the individual to appeal to the courts in order to ensure that governments, however powerful and of whatever persuasion they may be, shall not have the right to take away from the subject the right of appeal to the courts.


William Joseph Browne: Would the minister explain why he is leaving in this section the provision for a minimum salary of $4,200? Does he think there will ever be a time when the registrar will be paid so low a salary? What is the point of leaving it there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there will be but I am sure the hon. member will understand that in all matters under the civil service there is an effort that has to be continued at all times to maintain a reasonable relationship between salaries paid for one position and for another with respect both to their minima and maxima. This is the form in which we got it back as approved by the various officers of the civil service who had to check it, and I would be very reluctant to change it. My hon. friend is quite right in saying that under present conditions it has no real application.


William Joseph Browne: Further, I would point out that the section says the registrar shall have the rank of a deputy head of a department. Where can he find a comparison in salary between a registrar and a deputy head of a department? It seems to me it is an absurd position, and I would suggest to the minister that he should amend the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Exchequer Court Act EXCHEQUER COURT ACT



AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM SALARY OF REGISTRAR

Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 31, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Registrar of exchequer court. Tenure of office and salary.
William Joseph Browne: I should like to ask the minister why there is no minimum salary set in this bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there ever has been. We have simply retained the language of the old section and changed the maximum salary.


William Joseph Browne: You are a
true conservative.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Coming from the hon. member, that is a compliment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 32, respecting the revised statutes of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Supplement.
John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister make a statement?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As hon. members are aware, since I have made the statement several times, we have a statute revision commission preparing the first all-over revision of the federal statutes since 1927. This body has been engaged for some time, and is now approaching the completion of its work. The idea is that, at the

Revised Statutes of Canada next session of the house in 1952, we should pass a revision of all the statutes which will include all acts passed up until the end of 1951. It is proposed to have all the final copy ready, the type set and the platens taken off and ready to print when this work is completed. It will take about eight months to complete the printing of this huge mass of material. I have no doubt that during this time parliament will be busy enacting more legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And amending some that has been passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, and amending some that has been passed. But I would point out that the acts we are likely to amend we will likely amend on the terms of the 1927 revision and amendments. The purpose, and the only purpose, of this bill is to get over this difficulty of the legislative process continuing simultaneously with the printing process.
The amendments presented to the house during the 1952 session will not be incorporated in the 1952 revision, because the 1952 revision will include all of the statutes passed up until the end of 1951. When that work is finished we have to set it in printed form, so there has to be a cut-off date. The whole purpose of this bill is to authorize the governor in council to make provision for adding a supplement to the 1952 revised statutes. In others words, you will have volumes I, II, III and IV and an index. Then there will be this supplement. In the future, anyone looking at the revised statutes will look in the index and the index to the supplement, and will know that he has all the 1952 revised statutes listed in these two indices here.
In the meanwhile, we shall put out a 1952 volume of the annual statutes which will contain the appropriation acts, private and local acts and temporary acts that have no particular legislative character. Now, that is the purpose and the only purpose of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: The other day the minister mentioned that he had not as yet had a report from the commission engaged in revising the Criminal Code, which of course will be one of those statutes. In view of the fact that he expects that, with the exception of the amendments passed in 1952, he will go ahead with the printing of the revised statutes, does that mean it is expected the house will be made aware of the suggested changes in the Criminal Code at the next session so that the new Criminal Code may be included in the revised statutes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend is aware, the body which has been revising the Criminal Code is a separate body from that which has been revising the statutes. At

the next session we shall introduce the report of the body revising the Criminal Code, and we shall be asking the house to enact a revised Criminal Code in which we hope we can reduce the number of sections from somewhere between 1,100 and 1,200 to something between 700 and 800. This will be published, either with this supplement or as a separate consolidated statute. I believe most lawyers will agree that there is a great deal to be said for having a consolidated Criminal Code in a volume by itself.


William Joseph Browne: If that is so, why does not the minister decide on that now? I think it is a wonderful idea.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Decide on what?


William Joseph Browne: Why do we
not decide now to have a separate volume for the Criminal Code and keep it separate from the rest of the revised statutes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think we shall.


William Joseph Browne: I am glad that is going to be done but do not be in any doubt about it. Further I should like to ask the minister when he expects that the consolidation will be ready for printing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is, of the statutes or of the code?


William Joseph Browne: Of the
revised statutes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would think they will be ready by not later than February 1. That is an estimate, but I think it is a reasonably accurate one.


William Joseph Browne: That is, they will be ready for printing?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: When does the minister expect that they will be printed after that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I said a few moments ago, it will take about eight months to complete the printing, the proofreading, galley proof, page proof and so on. Then there is the binding of them. It will take about eight or nine months in order to get them out in book form.	i


William Joseph Browne: My purpose in asking that series of questions is this. What is the point of having a supplementary volume? The statutes for 1952 will begin again and go right on, in another series.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid that I did not make myself clear to my hon. friend. When the process of printing is started, we will say in February-the middle of February, 1952-of the 1952 revised statutes, about the same time or maybe a little bit later or a

little bit before we will start passing the annual 1952 statutes. If we do not make the provision which we attempt to make in this present bill, to have included the statutes which this house passes while the 1952 revised statutes are in the course of being printed, then we will have a hiatus in the revised statutes in that they will not reflect the bills that we pass in 1952. That is the reason we are doing that.


William Joseph Browne: But the
statutes published in 1952 will be themselves the statutes. You have your revised statutes up to the end of 1951. What is the point of having a supplementary volume?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For this reason, Mr. Chairman, amongst others. As my hon. friend who is himself a lawyer knows, when one speaks of the 1927 revised statutes, one always thinks of the 1927 revised statutes which include the statutes or any amendments which were passed in 1927. In the older days when parliament did not sit so continuously, this printing could be done in between sessions of parliament. But at the present time when the statutes are of their present magnitude, it takes a long while-a matter of some eight or nine months-to print them; and when, simultaneously with that printing process, there is a legislative process going on changing perhaps some of the very statutes which are being printed, if you do not make the provision that we are seeking here, you will end up with 1952 revised statutes which lawyers and others subsequently will not be able to refer to as being inclusive of all the statutes that are passed up until the end of 1952.


William Joseph Browne: Perhaps I did not make myself clear to the committee, Mr. Chairman. We are now making a consolidation and revision of the statutes which will be up to the end of 1951. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the prediction of the hon. member for Lake Centre as to an election in 1952 is correct and that the house were to adjourn suddenly without passing any legislation. The consolidation would be up until the end of 1951. Does the minister not agree? Then suppose for the sake of argument we passed two statutes only. They would be the statutes of 1952, first session. If there was a session following the first session, what is the objection to having that as the supplement to the revision instead of publishing a special volume? What is the point of publishing a special volume? It does not matter whether there are two or one hundred and two statutes. It is all in the session of 1952. They can still be used ipso facto as a supplement without having any special volume published at all.
Revised Statutes of Canada


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend would perhaps agree that, in the first place, parliament would not want to feel shackled in respect of any amendment that it would like to introduce to statutes which are included in the revision, during its 1952 session. If it wishes to do that I think it would be much better, in view of the small amount of extra cost that would be involved, to be able to present to the people of Canada for the next period of years-it is now twenty-five years since our last revision-revised statutes of 1952 which in all their volumes will contain all the statutes as revised up until the end of that year. If by putting that supplement in we can achieve that end, I think it is desirable that we should do so.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the minister one question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: Will that supplementary volume be any different from the statutes of 1952?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes. I explained that point before to my hon. friend. I said that all of the statutes of a legislative character, as distinguished from those which nrovide for supply and are of a sort of administrative character, will be included in this supplement. But the other ones that have nothing to do with legislative acts of general application will not be brought into the 1952 revision as a part of it, although under the circumstances they will have to be published in the form of a small separate volume. But then, fifteen years from now, anyone wanting to know what the revised statutes of 1952 are can go to the one small shelf of books and he has there the whole thing complete for 1952.


William Joseph Browne: To refer
back to the question of the criminal code, is it the intention of the government to have a separate volume for that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Mr. Brooks:: I should like to ask the minister whether the printing is all to be done by the king's printer. I have heard him state a number of times that the king's printer is extremely busy and that they have to wait sometimes eight or nine months to have work of this kind done. It seems to me that it could be done outside of the king's printer, under contract. I am just wondering if the minister can tell us about that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Part of it is now set up in type.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Part of it may be set up in type, but is it all being done by the king's printer?

Revised Statutes of Canada Mr. Bradley: Yes.	Mr. Garson: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it necessary that this should all be done by the king's printer?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I hope my hon. colleague will correct me if I am wrong, but I think all those arrangements have been made in the ordinary course. It is a peculiar set-up and we would prefer to have it done as an internal job. We must have specially skilled proofreaders and the like for the proofreading of the statutes. In many ways it is quite a difficult and important task.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no objection to the proposal contained in this bill, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that both the minister and the hon. member for St. John's West are making a mountain out of a molehill. It seems to me that the difficulty could have been resolved by just calling it the revised statutes of 1951, including the statutes up to the end of this year and then starting with one annual book for next year. If it turned out that there were two sessions of parliament in 1952 I can see that we might end up with three volumes for 1952; one would be the supplement to the revised statutes, another would be the statutes passed in the first session and another would be the statutes passed in the second session. In other words, the confusion which has been indicated by the minister is capable of being compounded, if one wants to do so. However, it is good to know that these revised statutes are on the way and will soon be available.
When the minister first began his explanation in committee today, I thought I heard him say something to the effect that it was the intention of the government that in 1952 parliament would pass these revised statutes. Am I correct in understanding the minister to use that language? That is not the case, is it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no, that is not the case. I am glad that my hon. friend has raised that point. The very act that we are amending here provides for their being taken care of in the manner outlined in this act. If I have said anything to the contrary, I was in error. I will check on what I said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whatever the minister said previously, it is clear now that the commission that is doing the job has the authority of the previous act-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -with the sanction of the governor general or the governor in council to issue a certified revision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether certain cases that I have in mind will be covered? For example, at this fall's session of parliament, amongst the bills we have passed was one that I think was entitled "The Canadian Forces Act". It included amendments to a score or more of existing statutes. I believe it was the hon. member for Kamloops who asked the Minister of National Defence whether it should not have been done by the process of amending each one of these statutes. The Minister of National Defence said that his department preferred it this way. I am asking the Minister of Justice now whether these respective amendments to a score or more of different statutes will come before us in the revised statutes as the Canadian Forces Act of 1951, or will these amendments be distributed amongst the various acts which were thereby amended?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I must not leave the impression with my colleagues in the house that I have specifically directed my attention to this point so that I can speak with complete authority. But my impression would be that in a case of that kind it would be covered by either of those two methods that my hon. friend has referred to, or possibly by a third one, by cross references or footnotes, making it clear that an amendment to a particular statute which the reader was examining was to be contained in another statute; and there would be a footnote at the bottom to indicate what that amendment was. There is a drafting difficulty to overcome there, I will grant you, but I am sure that that would be picked up in the ordinary course of events. I will make inquiries as to which of these alternatives will be employed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The same thing would apply with respect to the Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of that act was to amend a whole host of statutes of Canada to include reference to Newfoundland where that reference was needed. I presume the minister will make the same answer as he made to my previous question. It does seem to me that the more sensible thing is to have those amendments incorporated right into the act concerned.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course the difficulty about that is that the amendments in the form in which they were originally passed were the separate sections of, we will say, the a, b, c act, and if you put one into the x, y, z act

and another into the p, d, q act and another into another act you leave the reader of the volume in the position where he is wondering whether in coming from one place and appearing some place else they have not lost their original connotation. However, I think these are matters that we really do not need to worry our heads about, because they are technical matters for the draftsmen. If I had thought there would be any curiosity on the part of any hon. members in this connection I certainly would have briefed myself on this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can tell the minister that there is at least one curious member here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought you said "purist".


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Even so, I had better get on before someone picks up that comment and makes something else out of it. I have in mind legislation affecting veterans, the Pension Act, and the War Veterans Allowance Act, and all the other statutes affecting veterans. As the legislation now stands, these acts in themselves do not contain the necessary references to cover veterans who served in world war II as citizens of Newfoundland. The legislative sanctions covering them are found in the statute called the Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act. I will not pursue the matter further, but it did seem to me that the proper place to have these references would be in the veterans legislation itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bradley that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Civil Service Act in respect of the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.
Civil Service Act
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of adjourning this debate, with some assistance from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Assistance?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It turned out that we had later a surprise, because this resolution which sounds very interesting and very very innocent in its wording turned out to have more of a sting in the tail of it than was apparent to us or to the Minister of Public Works, who seemed to think right to the end of the interesting debate we had that the purport of the resolution was not quite the same as indicated by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley).
The resolution reads very briefly:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Civil Service Act in respect of the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.
When this matter was up before, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made some comments on the inadequacy of the resolution, which were very pointed, clear and forceful, and I propose to say nothing more on that point. But I wish to refer to what the Secretary of State said in introducing the resolution. He said in part, as reported at page 1500 of Hansard:
The present salaries of the civil service commissioners are greater than those actually specified in the Civil Service Act, the authorization for this being obtained annually by means of a special item in the estimates.
Then he added what I feel expresses very accurately and sincerely what he meant, and what no doubt members of the government often feel. He said this:
It is the purpose of the present amendments to the act to avoid the necessity of having recourse to the estimates . . .
Now, I am sure that idea is very attractive to members of the government, "to avoid having recourse to the estimates." But I go on. The minister said:
... by providing that the salaries of the civil service commissioners shall be set by the governor in council, which may also, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, retain the services of a commissioner beyond the age of 65 years.
The Minister of Public Works seemed to think that the matter was a very simple one, and had to do only with the tenure of office of the commissioners. He says this seems to be the important section. Well, of course, we have not seen the bill and therefore we are not able to judge as between one section and another. But I want to go back-and this is my chief point-to a remark made by the Secretary of State. He said:
It is the purpose of the present amendments to the act to avoid the necessity of having recourse

Civil Service Act
to the estimates by providing that the salaries of the civil service commissioners shall be set by the governor in council.
As I said before, it seems to me we should have further information; because I think it would be difficult to persuade us that these salaries-if I have correctly understood the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley)-should be dealt with in a manner so entirely different from the manner of dealing with other salaries.
We have spent considerable time in this chamber in the last three days settling certain other salaries by statutes. Here however we are not even to have them settled and presented in the estimates. Rather, we are to have them fixed by the governor in council. When we get into committee we will certainly need to have information on that subject because, on the face of it, it is repugnant to the whole idea of the fixing of salaries.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this resolution, and would direct my remarks first to the adequacy of it. I do not believe it is necessary to repeat what has already been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). All I will say in that regard is that there is not enough information in the resolution to make it possible for us to judge as to the value or the foolhardiness of the legislation to be introduced. My own feeling is that it will be quite foolhardy.
The information given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) does not indicate in any way what will be contained in the bill, other than that there is a desire to get away from the necessity of talking to this house about salaries during discussion of the estimates. As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) has said, it would be desirable to get away from that necessity each year; but there is a suggestion that the salaries will be fixed by orders in council. That is completely contrary to practice, and certainly, as the hon. member for Greenwood has said, it is repugnant to members of the house.
I say that, of all salaries, those of the civil service commissioners ought to be set by statute. They are the body who are supposed to be as far removed as possible from any political influence. The suggestion in the resolution is that the civil service commissioner be brought as closely as possible under the control of the government, not the control of members of the House of Commons. That principle is wrong, completely wrong. Members of the house do not want the
{Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
government tampering with the civil service commission-and it could tamper with them, through salaries, and do so by order in council and without reference to the House of Commons.
There is also for consideration the matter of the tenure of office. I should like to know what special dispensation ought to be given the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to recommend the extension of service of any man, without reference to the house. Especially is that true in a body like the civil service commission. I am completely opposed to the principle here suggested. I think the recommendation of the Auditor General ought to be implemented, and that is to have the salaries of the civil service commissioners set by statute, after that statute has been brought here, before members of the house. We should not have a condition whereby part of the salaries is set by statute and another part is set by the insertion of an item in the estimates. That is not a good way, nor is the present suggestion a good one.
If I am right in assuming that the intention is to give the governor in council the right to set these salaries and the tenure of office, and to do so by order in council, then I am completely opposed to the resolution, and I shall vote against it.
I strongly urge that the government ought not to proceed in this way. Let us take care of the matter in the ordinary fashion, by bringing in an amendment to the statute stating that these salaries and tenures of office shall be made statutory, subject to change from time to time by reference to the House of Commons. If that is done I shall have no further opposition to it.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what has been said by hon. members who have preceded me in the debate. It would seem to me, from the statement of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), that there are two points to be considered: one is that the salary of the civil service commissioners shall be set by the governor in council, and the other is that the tenure of office of these commissioners, who are generally men advanced in age, may be extended beyond the ordinary retirement age of 65 years, and that this may be done at the wish of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
It seems to me that this is a backward step. Indeed, both of these suggestions are backward steps. What we want to see in this country is civil service commissioners becoming as independent as the Auditor General, and not being subjected to political influence. In what other way can the public

Civil Service Act
have confidence in the appointment of civil servants? If the salaries and tenure of office of these commissioners are placed directly under the power of the governor in council, then I do not think they could do anything that would have a greater effect in taking away confidence in the civil service commissioners.
We would like to see the civil service commission a body in which the general public would have confidence, and especially one in which members of the civil service would have confidence. But if the civil service commissioners are going to be placed in the hands of the cabinet, then that confidence will be destroyed. Let me repeat my belief that, if this is done, it will be a backward step.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I think before passing the resolution, without giving the details of the bill, I might state that it is a very short one and deals exactly with what is mentioned in the resolution, namely the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.
The civil service commissioners are and always have been appointed by order in council. They shall hold office-and this is as it is stated in the old act-during good behaviour, for a period of ten years, from the date of their appointment. That is as it exists right now. In other words, if we withdrew this resolution we would remain in the position where they are appointed for ten years. So I cannot follow the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) that they are not independent of the government. They are in fact appointed during good behaviour.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know.


William Joseph Browne: What about the statement of the Secretary of State as it appears at page 1500 of Hansard?


Alphonse Fournier: You read it carefully, and you will see it is the same thing I am now repeating. They are appointed during good behaviour, for ten years. Other appointments, such as those of judges, on the other hand, are made for life. In this instance I repeat it is for a period of ten years.
What the government is seeking to do is to be able to extend that period of appointment, so that when they have completed ten years the period could be extended for another term of ten years, or for less than that. That is the only amendment suggested as to tenure of office.
Then, as to salaries: actually, the amount of the salaries is stated in the statute. But
with increased salaries in recent years, in order to keep the salaries of the commissioners on the same level as those of other civil servants, the government has had to include an estimate superseding the statute -because the estimate was, in itself, a statute.
We wish to have the commissioners placed on the same footing as other officials such as deputy ministers, so that when increases in salaries are requested the government can increase those salaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the Auditor
General?


Alphonse Fournier: No, I am not going
to start in with the Auditor General who, for decades, has been an official of the House of Commons, or parliament.
I understand you gentlemen would like to have the civil service commissioners employees of parliament. The policy of the different governments since I have been here was not to put them under parliament. Friends of my hon. friends on the other side modified the act and had an inquiry between 1930 and 1935. In their wisdom they did not think that the commissioners should come under parliament; they kept the appointments under the governor in council. If the opposition has changed its policy, I have no objections, but we have not changed ours as yet.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) has not done his usual good job because he can generally convince me when he is dealing with his own department. This time he sounded rather apologetic. The resolution before us will eliminate for all time the right of parliament to determine what shall be the salaries of the civil service commissioners, and that is a bad principle. If it was just a matter of letting the cabinet determine what these three persons were going to receive by way of remuneration from time to time, it would not be so bad, but that is not the case.
These three civil service commissioners preside over the destinies of all civil servants. They determine the formulae for the hiring of civil servants, and they determine also the salary ranges. When the Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, think that they should lift the salary range of their employees they must go before the civil service commission and prove that that is necessary. Actually these three men are presiding over all the functions of government outside this house.
I think that this House of Commons should at least keep them coming back here at any 94699-101

Civil Service Act
time they feel that they want increased remuneration. The principle now being established goes a long way toward eliminating control of parliament in the matter of governmental expenditure. Dealing with their own salaries is not important, but these three persons have to do with considerable expenditures outside this house. As I said before, they have to do with practically all the functions of government in the way of remuneration, hiring and so forth.
If there are three people in the civil service who should be tied up closely to this House of Commons in the matter of their own remuneration, it is these three civil service commissioners. If he examines the principle that is being advocated by this resolution I think the Minister of Public Works will realize that the government is taking a step in the direction of giving the governor in council the power of setting the remuneration for every department of government.


Alphonse Fournier: That is what they do.


Clarence Gillis: No, they do not.


Alphonse Fournier: On recommendation of the civil service commission, approved by treasury board.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, no.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes.


Clarence Gillis: 
Mr. Fulton:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
The house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY  DEEP WATERWAY BETWEEN MONTREAL AND LAKE ERIE

Lionel Chevrier: 
was deeper navigation. It was large channels that were required for the additional trade. It was the canal and channel development which made cheap water transportation a reality. But I should like to say more about that at a later stage.
The boundary line which separates Canada and the United States follows by treaty the 45th parallel of latitude until it strikes the St. Lawrence river at a spot a short distance east of Cornwall, and from thence for a distance of 115 miles westerly it follows the middle of the stream until it strikes the foot of lake Ontario. Because the Long Sault rapids in the international rapids section of the river St. Lawrence-about which much will be said in this debate-are in what is known as international waters, in order to develop those rapids it has therefore been necessary to seek the concurrence of both countries. Since 1895 Canada and the United States have co-operated in a series of investigations. They have covered both the engineering and economic aspects of the project. No other project of comparable size has had the benefit of such careful scrutiny and such complete engineering data. Every report has favoured the development of deep draft navigation in the St. Lawrence river, and from an early date all have recommended a power development in the international rapids section as an integral part of the project.
What then, sir, is the proposed great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway development? It is a
2,000	mile channel, 27 feet in depth, extending from the Atlantic seaboard to the heart of the North American continent. Coupled with this is a large power development at two sites at least, if not three. The first is in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river, where it is proposed to develop jointly with the United States 2,200,000 horsepower of electrical energy, one-half of which will belong to Canada and the other half to the United States. The second is in the Sou-langes section, where power development is already far advanced and where the Beauhar-nois installations will reach 1 million horsepower before the end of this year, with an ultimate expansion to 2 million horsepower when the installations are fully completed. The third site is the Lachine section where a projected 1,200,000 horsepower development might well be installed.
The great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway must first of all be distinguished from the St. Lawrence ship channel, which is a channel 35 feet in depth extending from the port of Montreal to a point 30 miles east of the city of Quebec. This channel has been deepened

at substantial cost by the federal government in order to bring deep-sea navigation into the port of Montreal. [DOT]
The St. Lawrence seaway should also be distinguished from the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin. This is a vast drainage system covering an area of 678,000 square miles, of which almost 500,000 are in Canada and
185.000	in the United States. It includes lake Superior, lake Michigan, lake Huron, lake St. Clair, lake Erie, lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river, together with all the tributary rivers and streams which flow into the basin, the chief of which are the Ottawa, the Saguenay and the St. Maurice rivers.
What does the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin consist of? It consists of five steps which are its chief assets and its chief liabilities; chief assets because within the steps lie tremendous amounts of waterpower awaiting development; chief liabilities because in order to circumnavigate these steps side canals must be built at some cost to the government.
The five steps are: 1. St. Mary's falls lying between lake Superior and lake Huron, where there is a drop of 21 feet; 2. The St. Clair-Detroit passage joining lake Huron and lake Erie, where there is a drop of 8 feet;
3.	Niagara river, emptying from lake Erie into lake Ontario, with a drop of 326 feet;
4.	The upper St. Lawrence river from lake Ontario to Montreal, with a drop of 225 feet;
5.	Montreal to the sea, a drop of 20 feet, entirely in Canada. These five steps will, it is estimated, develop approximately 9 million horsepower, divided as follows: At Niagara, 3,600,000 horsepower; in the international rapids section, 2,200,000 horsepower; in the Beauharnois or Soulanges section, 2,000,000 horsepower; in the Lachine section, 1,200,000 horsepower. All of this power is Canadian with the exception of 1,800,000 horsepower at Niagara and 1,100,000 horsepower in the international rapids section.
There is no need to labour the economic significance of this white power in an area of Canada where no coal or black power is found.
To what extent have these facilities been developed? From a power point of view
100.000	horsepower have been developed at the Sault, 1,800,000 at Niagara, 93,000 at Mas-sena, New York, and over 1,000,000 in the Soulanges section. Therefore out of a total potential of 9,000,000 horsepower, barely 3,000,000 have been developed, or about one-third.
For navigation, I have already mentioned the facilities that provide 25-foot channels past the first three steps, from the head of the great lakes to Prescott. The fleet of lake
St. Lawrence Waterway vessels using these facilities is said to provide the cheapest transportation in the world, the largest of them carrying over 20,000 tons.
From Montreal to the open gulf, the fifth step, the federal government has provided the St. Lawrence ship channel. It has been sufficient to make Montreal one of the busiest ocean ports of the world.
But at the fourth step, between Montreal and Prescott, there remains the 14-foot bottleneck. In other words, from Prescott to the head of the upper lakes are navigational facilities for 25-foot craft, and from Montreal to the sea are navigation facilities for 35-foot craft, but between the two is the neck of the bottle which should be made to disappear. The largest vessels that can pass the small locks of the present canals can carry less than 3,000 tons. These canals have served Canada well in their time, but their time is now past. They are obsolete, if judged by present day standards of traffic, method of construction and operation.
What new works are proposed with reference to this project? The new works proposed are those outlined at the time of the 1941 agreement. They are a matter of public record, so I need only refer to them here in general terms. However, attention centres chiefly on requirements in the upper St. Lawrence river, and that for obvious reasons. This part of the river, from Kingston to Montreal, divides naturally into five sections; the thousand islands section; the international rapids section; lake St. Francis section; the Soulanges section; the Lachine section. The second of these sections, namely in the international rapids section, is the area where the most of the works referred to in the agreement will have to be performed. Here the basic power development would include an upper control dam near Iroquois and a main dam and powerhouse near Cornwall. The project is what is known as the 238-242 single stage control project. This means that when the project is completed the elevation will be from 238 to 242 feet above the level of the sea. When one considers that the present elevation along the highway extending from Morrisburg to the city of Cornwall is 225 to 230 feet one will immediately realize that when the project is completed all those communities extending along that highway will be submerged to the extent of from 10 to 15 feet. It will be necessary, too, to construct short canals around both the control dam at Iroquois as well as the main dam in the Long Sault rapids. In the 1941 agreement it was proposed that the canals be on the United States side, but there is no problem

St. Lawrence Waterway about putting them on the Canadian side. As a matter of fact general plans have been prepared for such Canadian canals.
The other section that I had reference to a moment ago is Soulanges. Here the basic power development already exists at Beau-harnois, and a wide power canal is available for navigation. Little more is necessary than to add the locks and short access channels.
Third, in the Lachine section the minimum development will be a 10-mile canal and considerable channel enlargement. But a large-scale power development is possible in this section too. Discussions have been opened with Quebec, out of which may come an agreement for a combined power and navigation development in the Lachine section.
As for the work required in the great lakes, it will be necessary to enlarge the various connecting channels and deepen them to 27 feet. Except for the Welland ship canal, the work would be done by United States. This is no more than a continuation of a development that has been going on for over a century, it will be observed. And it is worth noting that this development could proceed independent of the 1941 agreement.
Why is the project necessary from a power standpoint? I need hardly dwell on the need for power, for the case has been clearly put by those who are interested in that part of the project. However, let me say in general terms that as a result of the rapid post-war expansion of industry, together with a constantly rising domestic consumption, the province of Ontario has been, for the past few years, faced with an acute shortage of power to meet demands. The house will recall that Canada negotiated a treaty last year with United States, ratified early this year, permitting a larger diversion of water for power at Niagara. The Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission lost no time in beginning a redevelopment there that is expected to harness another 600,000 horsepower or so before the end of 1954. But demand cannot wait in Ontario till 1954. In a province that prides itself on cheap hydro power, two large steam plants have already been started at Toronto and Windsor, and in each case the planned installation has been increased before the plant could be completed. I believe that the ultimate capacity now planned for these plants is nearly 900,000 horsepower. It appears that still more steam capacity will be required in the near future if the international hydro site is not developed. It comprises the one large block of undeveloped hydro power that now remains available in


the southern part of the province. The Financial Post in its issue of November 10 quotes Mr. R. H. Saunders, chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, to the effect that present estimates show demands for power can be met up to the end of 1956, and that after that the commission stands at the crossroads if the St. Lawrence power is not available.
Post-war demand has been growing rapidly in Quebec too, including more particularly the metropolitan area of Montreal. Several power developments or expansions are under way right now, but it appears that construction of additional facilities must start in the near future as well. Quebec is fortunate in that Lachine is not an only choice. Power needs could be met for some time by first a final expansion at Beauharnois, and next by the expansion of other sites such as that at Carillon, for instance. It is my hope nevertheless that an agreement can be reached with the province of Quebec for a joint development for power and navigation at Lachine.
Why is the project necessary from a navigation standpoint? With respect to navigation, the main objective is to remove the present bottleneck in the St. Lawrence river. Removing the bottleneck would save many millions of dollars a year in the cost of moving shipments that today pass its small canals or follow alternative routes to market. This alone would be sufficient reason to construct the seaway. Now it also promises to be the key that will unlock the future for the iron ore fields of Quebec and Labrador. It will open large new markets for these ores in the great lakes area, otherwise largely out of economic reach. And on the other side of the coin it will give those interior steel mills the best new source of ore at the lowest cost, a matter of serious concern at the moment.
Iron ore: The mills within reach of the great lakes account for about 75 or 80 per cent of the steel produced in United States. They draw ore preponderantly from the iron ranges of the lake Superior district. The immediate problem is not the exhaustion of these ores, although that too may be expected at some more or less indefinite time. The point is that production of the ores now in use has just about reached its maximum annual rate, and that maintenance of even that rate promises to involve a continued increase in costs. Meanwhile ore requirements continue to rise, not only because of additions to steel capacity but because with a shortage of scrap it is taking more pig iron to make a ton of steel. The problem thus is one of a growing gap between supplies and requirements.

This gap can be filled partly with imported ore from Quebec-Labrador, Venezuela, Liberia and other countries, partly by resort to such low-grade sources of iron as the so-called taconite found in vast quantities in the lake Superior district. It is likely that each of these sources will get some call in any event. But without the seaway, the great inland steel mills can expect to find their ore more costly and their supply position less satisfactory all around.
Obviously enough, the steel mills are going to use the ore that is cheapest to them. At present that is lake Superior ore, broadly speaking. But the delivered prices of these ores have been moving upward for many decades. I have just indicated that an even sharper upward movement is in prospect. This price increase may be limited to the amount that would cover the cost of delivering imported ores to the same markets.
Processes are being developed for concentrating one type of taconite, a low-grade iron formation that exists in large quantities in the lake Superior ranges. But the best hope is that the product would be competitive with natural ore if production could be maintained at full plant capacity. The high overhead of the concentration plants would make them vulnerable to any slackening of demand. Accordingly it appears in like manner that it would take a substantial increase in ore prices to bring a development of this source on the scale required.
The new ore traffic: Completion of the seaway would change this picture completely. Quebec-Labrador ores, after paying any likely toll, would be enabled to compete in most of the lake districts at current prices for ore. The ore deposits occur near the surface over a wide area, readily mined from open pits, and hence low-cost shipments could be made in any volume likely to be required. Accordingly the seaway will give the best possible answer to the ore problem, both in terms of cost and of ready availability.
This invites a sober comparison with the role that has been played by the navigation facilities in the upper lakes. These facilities made available a plentiful supply of iron ore at a low cost, on which were based the great steel centres of today. Now that production of those ores has reached its limit and costs threaten to increase sharply, the new facilities will make available new and expansible supplies at comparatively low cost.
The Quebec-Labrador development already is going ahead. The production goal is 10 million tons a year. Given the seaway, however, the mining interests have already indicated that they would expect to sell 20
St. Lawrence Waterway million tons a year as soon as production could be raised to that volume. They could expect a further growth of demand in following years.
Canada has a twofold interest in this matter. We are concerned with making the best and greatest use of a rich natural resource. But we are interested in the other side of the coin too, the ore supply problem facing the steel mills. A plentiful supply of iron and steel at comparatively low prices has been taken for granted in our economy. It can be taken for granted no longer. A little thought will show the serious implications of the threatened higher costs in these fields. The seaway promises to avert the worst of this threat. We cannot afford to do without it.
Other benefits:	I have referred to transportation economies in other fields as well as iron ore. They may attract less attention but they will be important too. It so happens that they promise to be all the greater because of the new ore movement. It appears that the lake carriers delivering ore from Seven Islands to lake Erie will find it of advantage to proceed to the head of the lakes to pick up cargo for Montreal or beyond, and that for such offerings they could underquote any other vessels that did not have a like advantage in two-way cargoes. This of course means a more economical use of shipping. Moreover, it is expected that the up traffic will outweigh the down, what with the preponderance of iron ore. The difference may not be great, but it should be enough to shift the rate advantage to the downbound cargoes as a result of normal competitive forces.
In this connection it may be of interest to note that ocean-going vessels are not expected to play a major role on the seaway. They may very well enter in some numbers, to be sure. But in the circumstances I have outlined it would appear that an ocean vessel would not enter unless it had an inbound cargo as well as an outbound offering. No doubt there will be those that would have this advantage, but otherwise most of them will find it more attractive to pick up their cargoes at Montreal or some other transfer point.
Is the project necessary from the point of view of defence? From the point of view of national defence, I believe that the development of the St. Lawrence deep waterway is of the greatest urgency. The main contribution perhaps would be in the field just discussed, iron ore supplies. The demand for ore has risen in the present period of preparedness, and would rise sharply again on the outbreak of a major war. The possible

St. Lawrence Waterway sources are sea-borne imports, taconite concentrates, and seaway shipments from Quebec and Labrador. But sea-borne imports would be highly vulnerable in war. Far from increasing, they would decline or disappear, putting a still greater strain on other sources. This did happen during the late war, when millions of tons had to be shipped from the lake Superior ranges to the east coast. Yet taconite production could not be expanded rapidly unless expensive plants were held idle in reserve. New plants would be so costly in time and materials that it might prove too late to start them after the emergency arose, and hence the war effort would be seriously handicapped. On the other hand, once the initial mining development is complete in Labrador and the seaway is open, it would be little more than a matter of putting additional shovels to work to get all the ore that the steel furnaces could use. Even those mills on the east coast of the United States could draw Labrador ore from lake Erie.
The seaway would make at least four other contributions to defence. Important as they are, I will do no more than mention them now. The project would create a reserve of power in the industrial heart of Canada, to be drawn on in the emergency. The combination of power and navigation will stimulate industrial growth, permitting more of the specialized production required in modern war. The seaway will add flexibility and dispersal to a shipbuilding and ship repair program in a sheltered area in the upper and lower reaches of the great lakes. And it will provide an additional transportation route between the factories and the battlefront.
Will the seaway be vulnerable to attack? In the first place ore carriers and other vessels from the gulf of St. Lawrence to the seaway would be infinitely less vulnerable to submarine attack than on the open sea, where this is the main menace. On the other hand it is true that a determined enemy attack could damage or destroy some of the seaway installations. The same can be said for any one of the existing hydro developments, steam power plants, the locks at Sault Ste. Marie, taconite concentration plants, the ore docks on lake Erie, the steel plants themselves, or the railway lines. But an enemy would find it extremely difficult to knock out all the various alternatives at the same time. Surely, then, the best over-all defence is to increase and disperse the most promising alternatives. Just as surely, the deep waterway and the associated power development qualify for a high priority.
What about the materials and manpower for construction? The same considerations

give the answer to this pertinent question, whether the project warrants the use of scarce materials and manpower in today's circumstances. The present period of defence preparation may be short or may be long, but it is precisely in such a period that works should be undertaken to add to our economic strength and efficiency. That is this government's attitude toward resource development and defence-supporting projects generally. Postponing the project would not relieve the pressure on men and materials. It might rather increase it. For without the seaway, other hydro or steam capacity would be required, other transportation facilities, more ore concentration facilities and other works. Moreover, as I have suggested above, a large part of these alternative facilities would be less suitable to the needs of war if it came.
What are the regional benefits of the project? Perhaps I have given enough reason already for saying that this project is of national concern, that it will benefit Canada from coast to coast. That is my own firm conviction. I have been gratified therefore to hear many hon. members from widely separated points give it their support. But 1 would like to mention some of the direct benefits that I see for each of the ten provinces.
Let me say at once that the main benefits do not promise to fall to the areas of industrial concentration in Ontario and Quebec. The outstanding industrial stimulation promises to be in the ore fields of Newfoundland's Labrador and Quebec's Ungava district. It has been arranged that the men to be employed in Labrador shall be recruited as far as possible in Newfoundland, and indeed the two most obvious benefits in both provinces are the new employment opportunities and the provincial royalty revenues.
Both the power and the navigation facilities provided by the project will be important for a number of industries in Ontario and Quebec, of course, and in some cases there will be obvious benefits on both counts.
Further development of power from the St. Lawrence certainly will serve the expansion of industry. That is its purpose and its justification, for the demand for power is growing rapidly. But that demand is going to grow in any event. It is simply a matter of meeting it in the most economical manner. Whether industrialization comes from this scheme or from another, namely from coal by the development of steam plants, 1 do not think it would be possible to stop that development. This is particularly true in Ontario, where still more steam plants are the only alternative to an international hydro development in the St. Lawrence. Quebec on

the other hand can develop its St. Lawrence power independently of the seaway project, and has other hydro sites as well that will serve its industrial expansion.
On the navigation side, the benefits will be most important for commodities having high transportation costs relative to their value. The volume of such commodities used or produced in central Canada and likely to be served by the seaway is only a small part of the prospective traffic. Without meaning to belittle the advantages to this area, it must nevertheless be observed that the main benefits will be felt elsewhere.
As a matter of fact it is difficult to go very far in ranking the benefits to the various provinces in order of importance. Rather than argue about which will gain the most, let us look at what concrete opportunities will be opened up for each.
The prairies would find a substantial saving in the cost of moving grain, flour and other products to markets in eastern Canada and overseas. Moreover the seaway would permit large ocean vessels to move into the great lakes to relieve such shortages of shipping as occurred this year. Shortages occur from time to time to hinder the grain movement, for at present the only vessels that can enter the lakes are too small and too few to make much impression.
I have mentioned already Newfoundland's interest in the Labrador development. Beyond this, the four maritime provinces would get a new and low cost transportation route to the heart of the continent. They complain now with some justice that there is no effective water competition to keep down the rail rates. Well, this is it. There can be no doubt but that it would bring new opportunities to explore in pulpwood, wood pulp, paper, lumber, specialty agricultural products, minerals and other products.


Clarence Gillis: Say that a little louder.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend interjects,
but I well remember the essence of the debates on the freight rate legislation both in the house and in the committee. It was said that the maritime provinces required a greater opportunity to move their commodities into the markets of central Canada. This will provide a cheaper route than the one which already exists, and I am sure, knowing the maritimers as I do, that with the initiative they possess they will make use of these many advantages.
The seaway would bring British Columbia much closer to the centre of this continent. For example, British Columbia lumber now moves all rail to these markets, but at Montreal it has been delivered cheaper by the
St. Lawrence Waterway all water route through the Panama canal. The possibility of a continued water movement without transshipment holds great promise, for the market to be reached is substantial.
What will be the effect on the railways of Canada? I do not think that the fortunes of the railways nor the economy of the railways would be materially affected by this project. For one thing, almost half the seaway traffic foreseen is in iron ore. That is traffic which does not exist at the moment in so far as the lower St. Lawrence is concerned, and in so far as the railways are concerned it is new traffic. Another large part already uses the water route for a good deal of its movement, and either leaves the lakes to move by United States routes or transships to small canallers. Still another substantial part now moves all the way by water in those canallers. Such traffic as is lost by railways will be largely in items now paying rates among the lowest in the schedule, rates that are low in the areas affected because strong competition from vessel service already exists.
On the other hand a continued industrial development, further stimulated by the project, may be expected to bring new and high class traffic to the railways, including new traffic in the very areas where diversions may occur. Canada has not stopped growing yet, and the coming decade looks as promising as any in the past. We are going to need not only the seaway but a continued expansion of railway facilities as well.
Do we want the United States to participate in the project? This brief review-[DOT] yes, I still maintain that it is brief because it is a large subject and almost impossible to consider fully in the time at the disposal of any hon. member-has outlined the reasons as I see them why Canada should press forward with the seaway. To me the case from the United States point of view is just as strong or even stronger than that which I have attempted to make for Canada. That is why we would welcome full participation of the United States along the terms of the 1941 agreement. But that agreement, as I stated earlier, after slightly more than ten years still awaits congressional approval. In the face of this uncertainty we are forced to consider how else our objective can be achieved.
The whole project hinges on the development of the international rapids section. Above it Canada could deepen the Welland ship canal, and the improvement of the other canals could be left to the United States to undertake in the normal process
1580	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway of expansion of water transportation, as has been the case down through the years. Below it the river is wholly within Canada and the necessary works will be Canada's responsibility in any event.
I believe I have shown to the house the benefits to be derived by Canada through the joint development of power and navigation in the seaway. The project is not one of navigation alone nor of power alone. It is jointly one of power and navigation, and to achieve this maximum objective it is obvious that some form of international co-operation is necessary for the successful development of the international rapids section of the river. Without a doubt the final solution is to be found either in the approval of the 1941 agreement with some modifications or in the 1909 treaty between the United States and Canada.
But let me say again that Canada would prefer approval of the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin agreement of 1941 with modifications as already discussed in the United States congress, such as provision for the charging of tolls. That agreement was signed in recognition of the fact that the international section of the St. Lawrence river is a boundary water. It was signed in recognition of the fact that both countries would participate in the benefits and. each would have a continuing interest in the success of the project. These considerations are as valid today as they were in 1941. We want these considerations expressed today in terms of that agreement if possible because we want to respect the agreement of 1941. But over and above that we are anxious to get on with the job.	[DOT]
In the event that approval of congress is withheld or action further delayed, this government is prepared to undertake an alternative, namely an all-Canadian seaway, and to endeavour to bring about the development of power in the international rapids section by the province of Ontario and an appropriate United States authority, through the machinery established under the 1909 boundary waters treaty or by whatever other means may be found suitable. Canada could and would add the navigation facilities and complete the other essential parts of the seaway. If the costs not borne by power are covered by tolls on shipping, it is of much less consequence who makes the initial expenditures, and Canada can do any necessary financing.
It is in this context that the resolution before us today and that covering the bill implementing the agreement between Canada and Ontario should be considered. The proposed St. Lawrence seaway authority would


have power to act for Canada under whatever arrangements the project does proceed. If the Canada-United States agreement of 1941 is approved, it would be the agency to construct the works assigned to Canada as provided therein. If the project proceeds on any other basis, the authority would undertake the works required to provide the navigation facilities from Montreal to lake Erie, and such other work as might be the responsibility of this government.
On completion of the project the authority would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and administration of the Canadian navigation works from Montreal to lake Erie, including not only the new works but such existing works as may be entrusted to it. It would be responsible for levying such tolls as would cover its current expenditures and recover its capital expenditures over a period not exceeding fifty years.
What will be the cost to the federal treasury? Ontario and New York already have indicated their willingness to undertake the basic power development in the international rapids section, which it is estimated would cost something over $400 million, and this would be a normal business investment. If Quebec joins with the federal government to develop power in the Lachine section, it will be because that, too, is a good and timely investment. The remaining cost to be borne by Canada on behalf of navigation would not much exceed $250 million, which would provide a 27-foot waterway from Montreal to lake Erie.
This might appear to be a large sum of money, but let us take a look at it from this angle. Already Canada has invested about $300 million in the ship channel below Montreal, the 14-foot canals into lake Ontario, the Welland canal, and the lock at Sault Ste. Marie. Most of those expenditures date back to years when a dollar meant a great deal more than it does today, and when Canada was much poorer in material resources. The Welland ship canal cost $132 million. If the work and material that went into it were priced at today's levels, this figure alone would exceed the estimated cost of the remaining navigation works now contemplated. And whereas the earlier investments have been carried without benefit of tolls, as part of the cost of national development, it is now proposed to liquidate the investment in the seaway by a levy on the traffic served.
In conclusion, let me summarize the government's view in a very few words. We believe that Canada needs the St. Lawrence seaway and power development at the earliest possible date. We believe that it is important

for economic development and urgent for national defence. We believe not merely that it can pay its own way, but that the benefits to both Canada and the United States will far outweigh its original cost.
We would prefer to have full United States participation in the project under the terms of the 1941 agreement, perhaps with some modification, along lines already discussed in congress, providing the agreement is approved at an early date. We are now recommending to parliament that, failing such approval, the all-Canadian seaway be undertaken on the most suitable basis that can be established.
Mr. Speaker, when it is realized that more traffic now passes through the locks at Sault Ste. Marie in a season than, passes in twelve months through the Panama, Suez, Manchester, and Kiel canals put together, one can get some idea what the opening of this river would mean to the economy of Canada as a whole. The traffic foreseen for the new canals -and for the Welland canal-will also far outrank that on any of these other famous canals. One glance at the map of the world will indicate why it was decided to build the Panama canal, for instance, through the isthmus of Panama, or the Suez canal linking the Mediterranean with the Red sea. One glance at the map will indicate that those were logical things to do; they were inevitable things to do, and they were the right things to do no matter what the cost. On the proposal to construct a deep waterway in the St. Lawrence river to link the great lakes with the Atlantic ocean, the verdict must be the same.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, the motions now before the house deal with a subject that has been in the minds of Canadians for a great many years. The review that has been given to the house by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has been a combination of an historical survey of the canal system and the waterways with which they are associated, and also the presentation of what he regards to be the compelling reasons why this project should be proceeded with at this time.
At the outset I can say that the decision to proceed with the waterway not only should be supported in itself, as it has been put forward by the minister, but in combination with the power development with which it is associated it calls for development now-a development that is long overdue. At a time when cheap power available in large quantities is so closely associated not only with national expansion and development but also with defence itself, it seems unreasonable
St. Lawrence Waterway that there should have been as great delay as there has been in the development of these resources.
I should like to speak, however, for a short time about the waterway as distinguished from the power development. In much of the discussion of this subject that has taken place, it seems to me there has been a noticeable tendency to regard the waterway as a new development. Actually the St. Lawrence waterway is part of an integrated waterway system which has been in operation for a great number of years. The facilities through the St. Lawrence and across the Niagara peninsula to lake Erie have been available for more than one hundred years, and the facilities at Sault Ste. Marie have been available only for a slightly shorter time. For many years ships could use those facilities right through to the head of the great lakes and the capacity of the canals to handle shipping was relatively the same throughout that distance. In more recent years the lock facilities at Sault Ste. Marie, particularly on the United States side of the river, have been deepened and widened so the immense ships carrying iron ore and grain can move through that canal system. So also have the locks and other facilities across the Niagara peninsula known as the Welland canal.
The bottleneck now exists at the St. Lawrence river simply because the facilities there have not kept pace with the facilities across the Niagara peninsula, through the St. Clair river and at Sault Ste. Marie. So far as the waterway aspect of the matter is concerned, it seems to me that we are simply called upon to ask ourselves whether we believe that a waterway which was started as one integrated system some one hundred years ago is to continue as an integrated system with similar facilities for the whole 2,000 miles of that waterway.
I agree with what has been said about the desirability of proceeding with that project. So far as the waterway is concerned, I think it is simply a case of following ordinary business methods and of bringing up to the standard-which justified the huge expenditures on the Welland canal, to some considerable extent-the lower canal system which would carry ships still further and make it possible to use ships of a uniform depth and uniform size for a great part of tonnage that would pass through that waterway.
As has been pointed out, however, we are also dealing with power, and we are doing so at a time when it is generally recognized that power should be made available as rapidly as possible from the great sources

St. Lawrence Waterway that we possess, not only tor the immediate purposes of defence but for the immense industrial expansion which is going to take place in this country in the years ahead. To me this is something that challenges the imagination, and that has challenged the imagination of our people for a great many years. It would hardly be expected that I personally could do anything but support these motions in view of the fact that for many years I had occasion to be seeking the fulfilment of that hope while I was in another legislative body. Certainly we wish to proceed with this development; but there are other considerations which must be borne in mind.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has reviewed the reasons why this development is, in his opinion, so important. He has indicated that it would provide additional opportunities for shipping in the St. Lawrence section of that combined waterway system. He has also pointed out that there are certain immediate reasons why it should be carried out. He has pointed out that a shortage of hydroelectric power is anticipated in Ontario and that this calls for early action. He has also pointed out that there is now available iron ore which was not previously available. With that thought in mind, he has indicated why he thinks this canal system should be developed.
I should like to deal with that particular aspect of this problem because, while the dominion government now states that it is prepared to proceed with this development on its own if the government of the United States is not ready to join in the enterprise, nevertheless I have not been able to find any report which would indicate-nor have I any information which would suggest-that the Canadian government has taken nearly as vigorous steps as it should to seek the approval of the United States for their joint action at the earliest possible date. Certainly, by all means, let us proceed alone if we cannot obtain that consent. But I think there are reasons for their participation that can be put before the government of the United States which should be emphasized with the utmost vigour. I do not think this is something that should be simply presented as a project that Canada wishes to undertake, and in which she hopes the United States will join. I think it is time for us to say to the government of the United States that while we reap great benefits from our association with them, they should recognize, to an extent which they do not seem to be recognizing, the fact that they depend on us to a great extent for many of their raw materials and other requirements in these extremely difficult days. We know that the vital metal fMr. Drew.l
nickel is found almost exclusively in Canada. We know that from her forests Canada supplies more than 80 per cent of the newsprint of the United States. We know that the United States fills the bulk of her demand for asbestos from Canada. We know of developments under way which will make Canada a great producer of aluminum for the world, a substantial part of our production going to the United States. Now we are reaching the stage of being a great producer of oil; and arguments are being put forward that oil from western Canada, as well as natural gas, should be used in the United States as well as in Canada. We are also the one assured source of that vital metal uranium in the whole western hemisphere. Now we are told- and we know-that we have in Canada immense, almost limitless, reserves of high-grade iron ore.
The Minister of Transport has indicated quite clearly that he is associating the development of this waterway with the employment of the iron ore from Quebec and Labrador. I am not suggesting for one moment, and I hope that through the contraction of any remarks I may make-and I recognize the necessary contraction-it will not be suggested that I am putting forward any proposition that we should not pool our resources with that great neighbour with which we are so closely associated for the purpose of defence as well as for industrial development. Nevertheless, I think the discovery of iron ore on a scale never previously contemplated opens up new possibilities for this country which we have scarcely yet started to visualize.
There are many precious metals; there are many metals which throughout the long history of the world have been regarded as more precious than others. At a time when freedom, and the defence of freedom, are the most precious things there are for mankind, the most precious metal of all is that which forms the base of our great defence efforts, namely steel. Therefore the discovery of iron, which we should think of in terms of steel, is something that gives a new perspective to our future hopes and our future expectations. During the last hundred years it has been steel which has measured the strength of nations, and to a very substantial degree the prosperity and economic power of nations as well.
At the time of the Napoleonic wars, when Great Britain assumed the leading role in bringing order out of chaos, the population of the British isles was no greater than Canada's population today. The immense increase in population, in industrial strength, in economic power, and their position of financial

leadership which was unchallenged until they exhausted their resources so greatly in two world wars, saw its great development when an Englishman, Henry Bessemer, invented a process for smelting iron ore and producing steel in large quantities at economic prices. It was not iron but steel that built the power of the British isles, and it was steel that gave to the world what was known for so many generations as the Pax Britan-nioa. It was steel that gave to Britain not only population, prosperity and world importance on a scale not hitherto known, but also the naval and military power which played so great a part in the preservation of peace throughout the world. Now with the shifting balances of national strength it is steel that has given the United States its great position of leadership. And that leadership can be measured in the immense tonnage of steel which pours out from the steel mills of the United States. That has depended upon their possession of great ore reserves, the largest being in the Mesabi range. Their reserves are not exhausted. Nevertheless they have made such great demands upon those resources, not only for their own domestic purposes but in the common cause of freedom throughout these years that have passed, that the ore from their remaining reserves is becoming more expensive, and they are looking to other sources for that iron ore.
It has been pointed out by the Minister of Transport this afternoon that the construction of this seaway is, in his mind and I assume in the mind of the government, at this point, closely associated with the demand, and the increasing demand, of the steel mills of the United States for greater quantities of iron ore, for iron ore they can bring to their mills without having to carry it along extended sea routes if we should again at any time face the unhappy possibility of war.
I think it is proper that the minister should have pointed out this aspect of the problem, because all the discussion that has been taking place in public on this subject has emphasized the fact that one of the reasons for the construction of the waterway is that as a defence measure it will make possible the movement of iron ore from these new and vast resources in Quebec and Labrador to the established mills in the inland areas of the United States.
I recognize-as I am sure every hon. member in this house recognizes, and as I think all informed Canadians recognize-that it is important to us to be sure there will be ample steel production in the United States to maintain their great efforts and to provide
St. Lawrence Waterway not only their requirements for new structural steel but also their immense requirements for the weapons and the engines of war for themselves and for other countries less fortunately situated from that point of view. However, while we recognize that need, since Providence has placed at our disposal so much of this vitally precious metal, as we make our plans for supplying iron ore to the mills of the United States we should be laying plans now for the construction of mills in Canada to produce steel on a scale we have never contemplated at any time in the past.
The limits of the development of this country, and the increase in prosperity and employment from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in the years ahead will be measured largely by the extent to which, right now, we plan our course, so that from the maritimes on the east to British Columbia on the west this iron ore will be used not merely as iron ore but for the production of steel in mills planted strategically right across this country.
We have spoken about the need for the decentralization of industry in Canada. This is the time for us to plan the decentralization of great industries in every part of Canada. We have mills on the Atlantic seaboard today. As we plan for the use of our iron ore, let us make sure that those mills now existing in eastern Canada are supplied with iron ore on a scale which will require much greater milling capacity than they have today. And let us recognize that while there are immense advantages in carrying iron ore to the established mills in the central part of Canada, there are equally great advantages in assuring steel supplies at seaports both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, so that we may be shipping steel in the form of steel to our friends and allies in other parts of the world.
We have reason to be proud of Canada's growth and expansion during the first fifty years of this century, but steel will make growth possible on a scale we have hardly imagined, if as we plan the use of these new facilities we recognize that it will be to the extent that we fabricate steel from that iron ore in Canada that we will really measure our growth in the years ahead.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment for dinner I was referring to the importance of steel in the development of this and every other country. I do not propose on

St. Lawrence Waterway this occasion to go into statistical details of our present consumption of steel and our requirements from the United States because we know that we are short of steel. That is emphasized every day. And while we recognize that we are very short of steel at this time we know also that we have not yet felt the real pressure which is bound to come when substantial efforts are made to produce weapons and equipment of various kinds which are required for our general defence effort.
The steel mills we have already in the maritime provinces, in the central provinces and on the Pacific coast can all be greatly expanded, and new mills can be built. The question is how that can be done. Always the question arises as to whether a development which may appear to be related in some way to the emergency of defence itself is to be carried out by the government or by private enterprise in the usual way. I think we can all look back for a practical suggestion as to the way in which this can be done.
At the beginning of the present century we looked upon our forests as being mainly a source of building lumber, firewood, railroad ties, pit props and other commodities usually made from wood. A great deal of wood was being cut in this country for export to the United States in the form of pulp logs. The time came when some of the provincial governments decided that it would be wise to employ Canadian workmen in processing our raw materials instead of exporting them in the least valuable form and providing extremely profitable employment for the workmen of other countries. I do not recall ever having heard it suggested that in so doing any Canadian province or Canada as a nation was selfish or unfair or in any way acting outside of its rights. Provisions known as manufacturing clauses were introduced into the contracts permitting the cutting of pulp logs. These clauses provided that where wood was being cut in this country it should be processed into manufactured form in Canada except under such arrangements as permitted a mutually satisfactory exchange of skill and effort whereby some of the well-established companies in the United States built mills in Canada to manufacture pulp and paper and in return received a certain supply of cut pulp logs to continue production in their own mills.
Those manufacturing clauses were the beginning of large-scale employment in Canada from our forest resources. Today the largest earner of dollars is the forest products industry, which makes more money than any of the mining enterprises. That has been


almost directly related to the insistence that those resources which Providence has placed at our disposal should be used to the advantage of our own people and for the employment of our people at the highest level of skilled workmanship.
This meant new towns and new cities right across the country. I have seen them, and most hon. members have seen them. I do not think there is anything more thrilling than to watch the emergence from the virgin forest of some of these beautiful communities based upon no other enterprise than the employment of our forest resources to their highest level of production right here in Canada.
I cannot recall the United States having raised any objection at any time either by formal presentation to the Canadian government or in any other way. I cannot recall a time when it was ever suggested that there was anything improper in this course. If it was sound for us to raise ourselves from the position of wood choppers for the workers of the United States, it is equally sound for us to say that we shall not limit ourselves to the digging of the iron ore, that we shall give to workers here in Canada, and workers yet unborn, employment on a scale we have never even contemplated, through the use of these new resources now available to us.
I should think it would be very proper and wise that we should have manufacturing clauses in these contracts under which iron ore is exported from Canada. Then we would see great steel mills in the maritime provinces taking advantage of their seaports to ship steel and steel products to the ports of the world which in turn would distribute those products to the nations which need steel so much today. I can visualize great trade from Vancouver and the other great ports of the Pacific coast when in due course we once again return to a somewhat normal measure of trade with the oriental countries to the west. I can visualize immense traffic bringing its return of business of every kind to our shores. Along with that I can see the expanding production of industry of all kinds in the central provinces, and in the prairie provinces where this great waterway we have been discussing would give special advantages.
I have said that I believe steel is the most precious metal of all, but let us not for a moment forget the other things we have, copper, lead, zinc, the new metal titanium which can do such remarkable things, nickel, gold, silver and, as I mentioned before, uranium. These are only some of the metals we possess. These are

the great metals. Then we have our forests, and now we have oil in such abundance that people are beginning to wonder if this is not possibly the greatest oil deposit in the world.
The fact is that people living in Canada today have everything with which to build the firm foundation of a productive country which would sustain in great prosperity a population many times that which we now possess. There are those who are inclined to remind us that we have great mountains, vast tundras and the rock belt in the north. We have. The rock belt,, the mountains and even the tundras all have their value, and all have demonstrated that they contain great wealth. In this enormous country, the third largest in the world, exceeded in size only by Russia with 200 million people and China with 450 million, we have 14 million people. Yet there are those who use that ugly word "optimum" and say that the optimum population of Canada is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 million. That is statistical nonsense. Even today we can feed 100 million people with what we are able to produce from our soil, and we could exceed that number greatly if with a larger population more intense agricultural methods became profitable and were employed. With all these metals, with our timber and our oil, there is not the slightest question in the world that Canadians of future generations will be very foolish if they start talking about any optimum until the population of this country has exceeded 100 million people.
When I say that I am not suggesting that we are going to have 100 million people in Canada tomorrow, a year from now or five years from now; nor am I suggesting that we are suddenly going to move great populations to Canada to build up to that number. History shows how quickly populations increase when conditions provide the basis for a larger population. All we need to decide is that there is going to be a larger population and that we can support it with advantage to the people of every part of our country. I cannot help calling attention to an editorial which I found in Le Canada of Montreal under today's date, in which that newspaper takes exception to somewhat similar comments I made in Vancouver last Friday. The suggestion is that in making the statement that Canada's population can reach 100 million people with advantage to all of us I am suggesting that we suddenly start a flood of immigration which will build up to that extremely large number of people. I mention that only for the reason that the editorial seeks to convey an impression which was never contained in anything I said. I
St. Lawrence Waterway regret that a newspaper carrying the name Le Canada should suggest that in making a statement of that kind I was making a statement I would not be equally ready to make in any part of the province of Quebec as well as in any other part of Canada.
I would have thought that a newspaper with the name Le Canada would be proud to claim that Canada can grow, and that on the basis of that very ore which is now found in such vast quantities in the soil of Quebec that province, together with the other Canadian provinces, will expand its population and prosperity. I simply repeat what I said on the earlier occasion, that in mentioning a figure of that kind I am merely saying we need not worry about when that figure will be reached as long as we are confident we can support a population of that size, and then make our plans accordingly. The plans to which I was referring were plans to expand our own production by the best possible use of our resources, and that is what I am suggesting again tonight.
Once again I want to emphasize the vital role that iron and steel play. No oil would be found without steel. No copper, zinc or aluminum would be produced without steel. None of the great synthetics that we are producing today would be produced without steel. It is the basis of modem industrial expansion. That being so, of all the resources we possess I suggest it should be the declared policy to make sure we will use that raw material to the very best advantage of all Canadians when it is actually brought out from the soil.
I believe there are reasons why the people in some parts of Canada other than the central and prairie provinces can see some direct advantages from this waterway. Perhaps those advantages are more apparent to them than to the people of the east and west coasts, who view with some concern the possibility of a still greater concentration of industrial development and other activities which will be associated with this great enterprise. I suggest there are reasons for that concern.
The speech from the throne mentioned that we would be dealing with this subject. It referred also, for example, to the South Saskatchewan power and irrigation project, about which the government is still waiting for the advice of a committee, although for years -competent engineers have reported that the South Saskatchewan project could be proceeded with to the advantage of our people. We know, too, that highly competent engineers have been reporting for years that there are developments in the maritime provinces which could be carried forward

St. Lawrence Waterway with great advantage to those provinces as well as to the rest of Canada. For years we have heard of the possibility of using coal in Cape Breton, not only for ordinary industrial activities but also for the production of low cost electricity. We know of the Passa-maquoddy project; we know of the developments that have been proposed in the lower St. Lawrence. We know of the desire of Prince Edward Island for some industries associated with defence activities, and of the training activities being carried on in that cradle of our confederation. We know also of the immense possibilities of new developments in northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and throughout the great coastal and northern areas of British Columbia. I believe some of the concern that has already been expressed might well be removed if there were a broad declaration that we propose to develop all those resources for the advantage of our own people, and that we propose to follow whatever legitimate course we may to assure that it will be Canadian workmen from the Atlantic to the Pacific who will be employed in the fabrication of the things that are made from our raw materials.
We come back to the question of whether this is to be a joint effort in association with the United States. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) correctly interpreted the sentiment that has been widely expressed that this new waterway will carry at low cost to the steel mills on the great lakes the ore which is required there. At the same time we are discussing the possibility that Canada alone will build this waterway. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the United States does not think this waterway is important for defence, I do not know why we should tell them we are going to build it for them. I believe it is important. It is important for the development of our resources' and for the expansion of business in this country. But surely if it is as important as all that the United States would recognize that importance. If we are convinced that it is so important for defence, I should think that in the discussions with the United States the whole subject of the exchange of raw materials should be considered upon that basis. We should point out that if they do not believe the waterway is sufficiently important for defence, then we are going to use that waterway for Canadian mills at Hamilton, at the Sault and other points on the upper lakes as well as in the maritime provinces, for the employment of our own people. I believe we have a right to do that. We have a duty to our own people to do it.

I would hope, however, that we shall not find ourselves in a position where it becomes necessary to say that if the United States does not regard this as important from the point of view of defence, we must of course build up our own defence production as quickly as possible with our own raw materials. I hope the United States congress will decide that this is not only an advantage from their point of view, but will realize also that it would be one of the finest gestures in a troubled world if it were shown that two nations could develop an international waterway under terms of this kind. There is no other place in the world of which I know where there is any similar development. At a time when we are all thinking of peace and hoping for peace, this would be a great demonstration of what two nations, confident in the possibilities of peace, were prepared to do for their own future. I hope it can be approached on that basis, and I hope it will actually work out on that basis. I am not suggesting that we should, in any selfish expression of any kind, threaten United States by saying, "You do this or else".
I do suggest, however, that as Canadians, concerned first of all with the welfare of Canada, we point out to them that it is Canadian workmen and the growth of Canada with which we are concerned. Whatever we do in co-operation with them is, nevertheless, always done with that first thought in our minds. I hope the United States, which at all times has built its strength on the acceptance of the principle that its first duty was to the people of the United States, will recognize our legitimate aspirations and join us in this great peaceful expression of mutual confidence. If that is done, then I think we may find this waterway will become the key to Canada's new era. For centuries and more alchemists have been trying to convert base metal to gold. By the alchemy of good will a great joint effort of this kind could convert our vast iron resources to produce the gold that is found in the productive work of men profitably employed. If, with that vision, our government places before the United States the proposal that will emerge from this resolution and from the legislative steps which follow, then I think this may well be the beginning of Canada's golden age based upon the use of iron.
I should like also to go back into legend and recall the fact that the thousand islands section of the St. Lawrence waterway which we are now discussing carried the Indian name of Manatoana, which means "garden of the great spirit". I hope, Mr. Speaker, it will

be the garden of the great spirit of friendly co-operation between nations which will shine as an example to the whole world.


Major James William Coldwell: Not
since 1941, Mr. Speaker, have we had before us a definite proposal for the building of this great waterway. I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that the building of this waterway is perhaps, in a sense, the beginning of an era of new development in Canada the like of which we have not known as yet. I join with him in hoping that the rich resources of the northland and the great iron ore deposits in Labrador and in the province of Quebec may be used not to build great industries in the country of our great and good neighbour to the south, but may be used more and more to build great industries and give productive opportunities to the young men and women of our own country. In saying that I am not indulging, I hope, in any narrow nationalism. I think it would be a great pity if these vast resources that are now being developed were in part, we will say, shipped down the Atlantic coast of the United States to New Haven, New London, Connecticut, or some port on the United States coast line, passing the great coal fields of Nova Scotia, and were used rather to belittle our own resources of coal and so on in the maritime provinces and build up industries in another land. In the same way I think it would be regrettable if the ore passing up this great seaway were used mainly to expand the great iron and steel industry along the shores of lake Erie and at Port Huron, Cleveland, Buffalo and so on and were not used to build up industry in our own country.
I join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and others in the house in the hope that this may not occur. But I want to say to the government that I do not quite know how our objective is to be achieved if we have no regulation of that industry, or if we allow the matter to be determined purely by the profit motive and by free enterprise. Hon. members have heard me recount this incident before; but when early in the war steel plate was needed on the Pacific coast, and when the late hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. McGeer, the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. May-hew), the present Senator Reid and others of us on the committee dealing with war expenditures urged that, instead of building up industry in one part of Canada or in one or two spots, the great deposits of iron and coal lying in close proximity to each other on Vancouver island should be used to build up a steel industry on the Pacific coast, I
St. Lawrence Waterway remember how we were told categorically that such a procedure would not be permitted. We were told that the expansion was to be undertaken at Algoma, at Hamilton and where the steel industry was then located. In other words, we said at that time that the steel industry expansion was going to be in certain parts of Canada. If the government, as they may well have to, give any concessions in the building of this greatly expanded steel industry, whether it be under public or private enterprise, I would hope that the placing of industry in various other parts of Canada than those where that industry now exists will be undertaken; and that, if it is done by government support for established industry-free enterprise, if you like-we will say to them: We expect you to place some of your industries elsewhere than where they are to be found at the present time, or to expand in regions where there is at present both coal and iron, as in the maritime provinces.
But this is a great project. I suppose we think of it largely as a transportation problem, and that is the manner in which the leader of the opposition discussed it this evening. We think a great deal of the moving of ore from the province of Quebec, from Labrador, up the St. Lawrence river to the mills located along the great lakes. But to those of us who come from the prairie provinces there is another reason why we are interested in this project. We are convinced that when the channels now forming what the Minister of Transport calls a bottleneck have been deepened, and when ocean-going vessels can go right through to the ports on the great lakes, the products of the prairies will move more easily and at lower transportation costs. If ships bring iron ore up the St. Lawrence through the great lakes it is quite conceivable that some of those ships might at least carry grain down the great lakes, even if the cargo has to be transshipped at Montreal or one of the ocean ports. Consequently those of us who are looking at this matter from a prairie point of view hope, and indeed believe, that the expenditure which is to be made to deepen this channel in order to give our products access to the sea in ocean-going ships from the inland ports will be beneficial to the producers of the great plains.
While I indeed appreciate the remarks made by the leader of the opposition in relation to the value of this being a joint project between ourselves and the United States, may I say that I would not be at all worried if we had to undertake it by ourselves. As a joint project you have two nations exercising control over it. We might find that such joint
1588	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway control would lead to some awkward situations in the future, and that one or other of the two nations might find it beneficial to both that one nation, and not the two nations together, should undertake this great project.
Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I am not suggesting that, if the opportunity arises for this to be a joint undertaking, it should not be undertaken as such. It would relieve Canada of a vast expenditure of money if it were a joint undertaking. What I am saying is that there are some reasons why the undertaking of this project by Canada alone might be of benefit not only to Canada but to the two countries, since it would remove the possibility of misunderstanding and perhaps dispute in the days to come. Consequently I think that side of the picture should be considered.
But whether this is a joint undertaking or not, it is going to have a tremendous effect, not only in the field of transportation but in many other ways, upon the future of a large part of this country. When we think of what this project will mean along the shores of the great lakes-the building of additional port facilities^ the enlargement of the port facilities we now have in order to accommodate larger, ocean-going vessels and so on-it opens up vistas of expansion which may well beggar description and which we perhaps cannot adequately and properly conceive at the present time.
The proposed St. Lawrence seaway project is, of course, a dual purpose plan. I think we must keep that fact in mind. It combines both navigation and power projects.
I am not going to say much about the power project side of this because a great deal will be said on it in this house in the near future, and possibly in this debate. One of the features of this project is that it is not a navigation project alone but a great power project as well.
I have not had time to study the agreement that was tabled in the house yesterday, between the province of Ontario and the federal government, with regard to power development in this region. I am happy indeed to know that an agreement has been reached between the two governments.
As a navigation project of course it is one of the great projects in the history of the world. It means that there will be a 2,500-mile channel 27 feet or more in depth joining the Atlantic ocean with the chain of great lakes, permitting ocean-going vessels to ply backward and forward from the very heart of this continent to all the ports of Europe and the world. What a remarkable project it is in that respect. To appreciate the significance of this we have to understand the role [Mr. Coldwell.l

the St. Lawrence river has already played in the history and the development of Canada. Years ago it provided the only great route from the Atlantic ocean to the interior of the North American continent, and the impact this great route has had upon the history and the development of Canada and the United States is indeed almost incalculable. Its potentialities have undergone continual development until the present, when most of its length is navigable to deep draft vessels from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to Montreal. I remember when I was a boy at school I was taught that Montreal was the seaport, as it were, farthest away from the ocean; and it seemed almost inconceivable, until I first rode up that great river now over forty years ago, that a seaport could be situated a thousand miles from the open sea.
At the present time there is no obstacle to navigation which will prevent a ship with a draft of some 35 feet, I think the minister said this afternoon, reaching that great inland city and port of Montreal. From Prescott to lake Erie we have spent a tremendous amount of money as a nation in order to deepen and make navigable the canals in that region. It is already to a depth of 25 feet, and down-bound ships with drafts of 21 feet can navigate from lake Erie right through to the narrower and shallower channels near Prescott. Therefore the main section to be improved, as the minister said this afternoon, is the 115 miles from Montreal to Prescott, where navigation is seriously limited owing to the 14-foot depth that exists between those two points. He well called that this afternoon the bottleneck of this great inland waterway.
I believe we have already spent something over $300 million on the St. Lawrence in providing a 35-foot channel to Montreal, a 14-foot canal system from Montreal to lake Ontario, and a 25-foot channel from lake Ontario to lake Erie; and then of course the locks at the Sault. I hope all hon. members at one time or another have seen these remarkable projects; the Welland canal, the great locks that let ships in and out of lake Ontario, and the great locks along the Sault in the province of Ontario. And so it seems to me that having done this much, it is logical that an attempt should be made now to complete this project.
There are two projects, as the leader of the opposition said a short time ago, in which many of us are interested, and they both involve rivers: this great project, the seaway, and the great project of the South Saskatchewan, so there will be more produce to be exported along this waterway to the sea. It seems to me that the two things are related,

because they both deal with the possibilities of not only an expanded economy but an expanded policy, and all that an expanded policy brings in its train in a country of this kind.
As I said earlier, one of the chief enticements to the support of this project is that we believed there would be a reduction in the cost of transportation between the lower St. Lawrence and the great lakes. I do not intend to go into the whole route; the minister went into that this afternoon, but I intend to say something more than I have said about it. We have already completed a large section of it, and it seems to me we should now make up our minds that this is to be completed, whether we do it in co-operation with our great friendly neighbour to the south or whether we are compelled to go it alone.
I am not much impressed with the argument that this is a defence project. I hope that before this is completed the situation in the world will be somewhat different, that we shall have achieved a larger amount of peace among the nations and not have to regard this as a defence project. Indeed as a defence project, if was came, it might offer an inducement as a very interesting target to an aggressor nation who could deliver either guided missiles or atom bombs by planes. One atomic bomb dropped at the Sault could tie up lake shipping over the whole route. As I say, I do not regard this as a defence project but as an economic project, which will be useful to Canada in the years and probably the centuries to come.
I repeat, I am not going into all the details; but I think I might refer to some of them. In one way or another the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) have already referred to them. I might refer to the tremendous quantities not only of iron ore but of wheat and of other produce that I believe can be shipped over this route at lower costs, which should urge us to consider it in all its aspects. I know there will be criticism of this project, and there should be criticism because some of us are looking at it very largely from the point of view of the areas from which we come. The prairie area, which was my home for many years, always looked to the day when Fort William and Port Arthur would be ocean ports from which we might ship our wheat and our other produce without undue freight costs, without transshipment at Port McNicoll or Port Colborne or Prescott or Buffalo or other points. I am thinking of wheat now, of course, but there is other produce. We should be able to ship it from coast to coast without the necessity of moving our produce from one type of lake ship to an
St. Lawrence Waterway ocean-going vessel. Therefore I say this project should be carefully examined by every hon. member. Those of us who come from regions where we think this would be beneficial should listen to those who come from regions where the people think it may be harmful to them.
In the main, my personal belief is that if undertaken and completed, this project will open up a new era of progress and prosperity for many parts of this great country.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, when this project was mentioned some time ago I said the Social Credit group would support it. We still support it. I have liked generally the attitude of the government in going forward with this development. Canada is sufficiently grown up now that she does not need to have the co-operation of any neighbours in the building of a great project of this kind. She has so intimated, and so stated. She is going forward to build this project, which I believe is the right thing to do.
I always like to get along with my neighbours just as well as I possibly can. But I have always had the idea that I get along better with them if we do not go together in some project such as the building of a shed or something like that. And I think we would get along better with this project if it were all our own. In that respect I think the government can see quite readily the position we will take, so far as Canada going ahead with this project herself is concerned.
I am not sure just what the impact of this project will be immediately or ultimately upon the other provinces. But there is one thing I hope Ontario and Quebec will learn very soon, and that is that if they use a project of this kind greatly to increase their industrial strength and their strength of population, and consequently their voting strength; if they use the power they get from that added strength to seek to impose their will upon the other provinces to the detriment of those provinces, they are courting trouble. They are going to injure the other provinces, and thereby injure Canada. Therefore I hope the governments of Ontario and Quebec will do some good, earnest, serious thinking while this project is being built, and that they will take steps to see that the results of this project will be felt to the benefit of all provinces in Canada.
There are provinces that are worried about what this project will do to their economies. I would be in favour of giving those provinces the positive assurance that no injury will be done them, and that if there is any

St. Lawrence Waterway injury it will be made good in one way or another. I have in mind particularly the maritime provinces. My opinion is that Canada has treated the maritime provinces scandalously ever since they entered confederation. Many people act as though they do not care. "What difference does it make? They have not enough votes to bother us, anyway. Why bother about them?" Then, of course, when those people go down to the maritimes they talk nicely and get the people in the maritime provinces to vote Liberal or Conservative all the time, one or the other. And they are just as badly off when they vote for one as when they vote for the other. They go on suffering, from generation to generation. That has been the record. No Conservative administration can point to any more advantage given to the maritime provinces than any Liberal administration has given. And no Liberal administration can point with pride to its record of treatment of the maritimes. If anyone thinks he can point to any such administration, then I will listen to him when he rises to speak. Whatever is done we must keep in mind the maritime provinces. We must remember that those provinces should be given the opportunity of growing into the great and happy areas the Creator intended they should be, and that they should not be trailing in the wake of federal policy in this nation, greatly to their disadvantage, as has been their unhappy experience in the past.
This project is one of the most serious, from the standpoint of the maritime provinces. I sympathize deeply with them when I cast my eye over past records. If I were a maritimer I would be greatly worried about this project until I was given positive assurance that my area was not going to suffer. The minister's admirable speech this afternoon sounded all right for the maritime provinces. If it only works out that way no one will object. I think there is not much more to say in that connection, so far as we Albertans are concerned. We have not had the opportunity to study the project deeply enough to see all the possible pitfalls, but in a general way it would appear to be a good thing for Canada. It is going to be a good thing for Ontario and Quebec. Ultimately what is good for Ontario and Quebec is going to be good for the rest of Canada, if Ontario and Quebec use the common sense they ought to use. We certainly will pray that statesmen will arise in those two provinces who will realize their responsibilities in the future as their men have never realized them in the past.
The power aspect of the project is a great consideration. It is important that we have adequate power for Ontario and Quebec, and
fMr. Blackmore.l

it is very important that we should have no neighbour in a position to meddle in our affairs when we endeavour to use the power which will be derived from that project. That is another reason I would like to see us have the thing all to ourselves. I would want Canada to be generous with her neighbours in permitting the use of the development both in respect of travel and the use of power. But I want to be in the position that they realize that whatever they do is only with our consent.
I repeat that Alberta and the Social Credit movement will support this great project.


Mr. Robert Cauchon (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, as political economy depends upon the observation and study of both physical and human factors, it is of great interest to see how the peoples of nations react to the programs proposed to and imposed upon them. This enables us to judge a national policy not only by the intention which motivates it but also by its results. For instance, policies resulting in such services as railways and social security measures have always drawn heavily upon public finances, but who would criticize those undertakings for that reason? Would Canadians today say that the building of our transcontinental railways was ill advised?
Again, it has been often shown that increased production and work efficacy are means of improving the conditions of the workers. That being true, the prosperity of a country will be augmented by increasing the efficiency of human labour both by mechanization and more particularly by utilization of our potential electrical power. Only thus will our standard of living be improved, especially that of the workers who constitute the most important part of our population, for they produce what Canadians consume and export to maintain our foreign trade.
Quite apart from the substantial improvements through intelligent application of more efficient work methods and consequent increased production, an essential to prosperity is the investment of new capital. Such an opportunity for sound investment is afforded by the proposed plan to develop the St. Lawrence seaway. Can there be a more profitable investment for a nation than the development of the St. Lawrence, which is both a national and international asset? In fact, no greater opportunity for the successful development of commerce and of electrical power has ever been offered to mankind. The advantages cannot be regarded as of local importance only, because they give all Canada the opportunity of expanding her world trade by meeting competition through cheaper transportation.

The government which has suggested that our nation undertake the construction of this waterway, alone if need be, is now in a position to know the advantages to be derived from it. From the findings of numerous joint commissions which have been set up from time to time to study and report on the feasibility and need of the waterway it has been able to weigh the advantages and the costs. Ever since Dollier de Casson built a one and a half foot canal at Lachine in 1700, attempts have been made to use the great east and west waterway in the interests of both Canada and the United States. Together in 1905 these countries set up a joint standing national waterways commission which in turn led to the boundary waters treaty, effective in 1910. From that time matters pertaining to our international waters were under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission. This commission obtained reports from an engineering board, and held hearings in five of our provinces and several of those states most intimately concerned. Its report to the government-a report entirely favourable- recommended further study of the subject. This was in 1921.
Acting on the commission's recommendations further study was undertaken, which showed unanimity of opinion as to the economic value of the proposed waterway. But in 1924 fuller examination by six engineers, constituting an international joint board of engineers, resulted in a conference between Canada and Ontario, because the international section lies in that province. Again a favourable report was submitted.
The treaty drawn up by Canada and the United States as a result of these findings provided, among other terms, for a combined power and navigation project in the international section. There would be, according to its provisions, 2,200,000 horsepower to be divided equally between the two countries, and a 27-foot waterway from lake Superior to Montreal. The treaty, being defeated in the United States Senate in 1934, was never ratified.
But in 1940, because our war effort drew heavily on our supply of electrical power, the Canadian government proposed to the United States that conversations be held regarding the development of power on the St. Lawrence. As a result concessions were made which permitted Ontario to develop at Niagara 70,000 horsepower. Moreover, committees were set up to investigate development of the international rapids section. The government, after having received the reports of these committees, signed the great lakes-St. Lawrence agreement. As in
St. Lawrence Waterway 1934, under the St. Lawrence waterway treaty, it provided for a 27-foot waterway to Montreal, and for the development of
2,200,000	horsepower.
In reading the recommendations and reports submitted one is impressed by the fact that all these commissions were in favour of the undertaking. But history shows that opposition has always been encountered when a new project is under consideration. Such opposition may spring from lack of foresight, as in 1840 when, at the instance of the Michigan legislature, a bill was introduced in congress for a grant of land to aid in building the first canal at the Sault. Even Henry Clay argued against it and said that this region was beyond the reach of the remotest settlement. Today that statement would be ridiculous.
Opponents to the present scheme base their objections on:
(a)	The shortage of the navigation season.
(b)	The loss of trade that might be suffered by existing facilities.
(c)	The cost of construction.
(d)	The traffic's not justifying the cost.
(e)	Cost of maintenance.
In answer to those who fear that the shortness of the navigation season, averaging 215 days in Montreal and 237 days at the Welland canal, would make the scheme unprofitable I would point to the commerce on the Baltic sea. The tonnage is very heavy, but so organized that it can be carried during the open season. Understandingly there is in some quarters fear that the undertaking will militate against existing facilities. The experience of Liverpool, which strongly opposed the construction of the Manchester ship canal, is an indication of what happens under such circumstances. Both ports prosper.
In carrying out the present plan of construction, alone if necessary, I am convinced that the enormous sum involved will in the near future be proved insignificant when set against the development of resources, the expansion of trade and the investment of new capital attracted by reserves of low cost, available power and cheap transportation. The attraction exercised by such facilities is well exemplified by the aluminum industry in the Saguenay area of Quebec and at Kemano, B.C. The big advantage of such development is that the deepening of a channel to aid navigation is at the same time providing power for an area almost entirely dependent on white coal.
Let us next look at the benefits resulting from the improvements at the Sault. These

1592	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway paid for themselves five times over in the 1918 season alone. The saving that year in freight was $180 million but the cost had been only $32 million. It is impossible to reckon in advance the increase in traffic as a result of improved water transportation, as a study of the Panama and Suez canals clearly indicates. Improved transportation facilities create the demand for such facilities.
A study of the distribution of population proves that minerals, timber and other national resources if not accessible are of little value. The richest agricultural land is worth, depending entirely on transportation facilities, anywhere from a few dollars to several hundred dollars an acre. Transportation is the greatest creator and stabilizer of wealth. Moreover, in order to carry the traffic that will inevitably follow the steady growth of our country it is absolutely necessary to provide some other kind of transportation than is now available.
The need of better and cheaper transportation facilities is urgent and of interest to the entire country. With more power available, industry will expand and this expansion will demand the fullest employment of both water and rail transportation to meet the needs of those industries. Engineers assure us that conditions in the St. Lawrence are excellent for the maintenance of a navigable channel. Sediment is largely settled in the great lakes and the hard rock of the river assures a permanent bed. If the Suez canal with its high cost of maintenance has proved a profitable venture why should the St. Lawrence waterway, where physical conditions are more favourable and maintenance costs therefore much less, not prove profitable?
We must remember that the opening of the great lakes channel to the sea, thereby giving that area in effect a seacoast, is also as economically sound as a waterpower project is economically sound. The water supply is constant and adequate, a factor important both to power and navigation. The harnessing of hydroelectric power is of particular urgency to those provinces which have no coal and little or no oil or natural gas. I do not need to elaborate on the position of the province of Ontario in this respect. But I do believe that it is a duty of the federal government to make available to the provinces from the waters under its control a reserve of power upon which they can draw when and as required to enable them to make full use of their natural wealth.
Power and navigation have been and are closely associated in considering the St. Lawrence waterway, for power will be sold

and traffic on our inland waters will be multiplied and accelerated. As intimated previously, in the province of Ontario there are municipalities today seriously handicapped by lack of power. The project under consideration would alleviate this acute shortage. We are indeed failing to fulfil our obligations if we neglect to make possible a power project vital to so large a section of our population. Certainly the provinces of Ontario and Quebec understand the value of water-borne traffic and cheap power. Toronto alone saved many millions of dollars. I might also point to the growth of Arvida and Beauharnois. It is not necessary to speak at length of Cornwall's hopes for the future, as revealed in a recent issue of Saturday Night. I know its interests are in good hands.
Having watched since 1932 the growth of different municipalities in my own riding, I am in a position to know what the development of hydro power can do for a region. Several new industries have been attracted to Beauharnois, which has, as a result, nearly doubled in population. The same remarkable growth is apparent in Meloche-ville and St. Timothee. Valleyfield too has witnessed a large industrial development. Moreover, all these municipalities have a most promising future. Harnessing of the hydroelectric resources after the St. Lawrence seaway project is completed will produce a further industrial expansion.
What commodities will be affected by better and cheaper transportation to and from the great lakes area? Traffic in iron ore and petroleum is likely to be much heavier, in addition to the ever-increasing tonnages of grain and coal. Under present conditions tankers carry approximately 3,000 tons of gasoline and grain and coal carriers have a capacity of 2,500 to 3,000 tons. We are told that the St. Lawrence is to handle many millions of tons more, but because additional locks can be built its capacity is almost limitless. Savings in transportation cost on meats and lards, timber, automobiles and agricultural machinery, and the ores and coal necessary to their manufacture, would be passed on ultimately to the consumer.
Now let us consider what this project will mean to the western grain producers. Up to the time of my election to the House of Commons I knew relatively little about wheat. I now share an office with the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Strange as it may seem, my heretofore neglected education in this respect is in the process of being completed. I may say he makes it a continuing process. A saving of several cents per bushel on grain moving eastward by the proposed all water route has been estimated.

Mr. Louis Sabin, general superintendent of the St. Mary's fall canal, in giving evidence before the international joint commission in 1921 drew attention to the saving in distance and time effected by the use of the St. Lawrence all-water route compared to the Erie canal and Oswego-Mohawk route, 16 days and 15 hours against 19 days and 13 hours, and 4,148 miles as against 4,641.
The cost of sending grain by the all-water route to Montreal is 12i cents per bushel, by water and rail 25-2 cents and by rail 28-2 cents. These figures were obtained from the bureau of statistics. More grain could be shipped by the cheapest method if steamers of sufficient draft could load at the lakehead for eastern Canadian ports and the Atlantic. By thus removing the necessity of reloading, with its heavy costs in time and labour, loss by unrecoverable wastage from grain erosion could also be eliminated. This wastage, as estimated conservatively by an experienced elevator superintendent, is appreciable, as much as 30 pounds in each 1,000. It follows, therefore, that the benefits derived from lower transportation costs on grain alone would justify the required expenditure. Such reduction in transportation costs to foreign markets tends to increase the farmer's return on his entire crop. It is axiomatic that in a surplus producing country the farmer's price is largely determined by his return on the surplus.
Before making the momentous decision the government has considered all the arguments in favour of and against the project. I am firmly convinced that after the debate on this subject is concluded it will be clear to all hon. members of the house that the St. Lawrence waterway should be undertaken by Canada, and undertaken now. Mr. Speaker, coming generations will remember with gratitude the government which had the vision to invest in Canada's future.


Clarence Gillis: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it must be dull for you to have to sit there listening to the same story all night. In order that this may not look as if it were unanimous or prearranged, and for the sake of variety, I am going to take the other side of the argument. I agree with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that this is perhaps the most .mportant statement he ever made in this house. I view the action now proposed by the government in the light that it is going to have the most serious repercussions upon the economy of this country of any action that has ever been taken, that is if the government mean what they have said.
On another occasion I took the stand that I am going to take tonight, perhaps more
St. Lawrence Waterway briefly, and at that time I was told the policy I was advocating was my policy. I want to assure you that so far as I am concerned I represent people in this House of Commons, people who marked an X on a ballot and sent me here. They have a right to expect me to do the things they want done. I want to make that quite clear. Perhaps the province of Nova Scotia is the only province in Canada that has a policy on this particular question. I listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and he made a fine oration. My impression is that when I have said that, I have said it all. I listened to the minister, and I believe he did a good job with a bad case. To a large extent both hon. members were expressing their own opinions or the opinions of their party.
So there would be no misunderstanding about the attitude I am taking, I checked with my people during the past months. In so far as the Nova Scotia section of the C.C.F. is concerned, they have a policy on this particular matter. On November 2 and 3 I attended a convention of the party and listened to this matter discussed by about one hundred delegates. While they modified their stand, which was unalterable opposition, that section of the C.C.F. movement now takes the position that they will go along with this proposal provided the government considers it as an investment program that will mean equality of development in all sections of the country. I shall go into that in more detail later.
I was not satisfied with merely obtaining the opinion of the political party I happen to represent in this house-although they have a definite policy on the matter-and I checked with the united mine workers. Thirteen thousand coal miners, the major portion of them in the province of Nova Scotia, discussed this matter at their last convention held in Truro in August of this year. The convention instructed the executive board to go back and study the matter. There was to be no guess work about it, no ifs, ands and buts. They studied the matter from a practical standpoint through their research department, and they have a good research department. This union wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and I imagine all hon. members received a copy, setting out their considered opinion of the navigational portion of this project. They believe that the navigational part of the project is a threat to their means of livelihood. This memorandum issued by the union is dated October 16, and contains seven reasons for the union's belief that the navigational portion of this development would interfere with their

St. Lawrence Waterway means of livelihood. I am not going to put it on the record because the Minister of Transport likely has a copy.


John Horne Blackmore: Why does the hon. member not put it on the record?


Clarence Gillis: I believe the members of the house received copies of it, at least I have spoken to many people who did. I know it was sent to the Prime Minister.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not let the readers of Hansard know about it? The people in British Columbia and Alberta know nothing about it.


Clarence Gillis: If the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) wants this information on the record, I am quite prepared to read it. If he wants it put on the record without me reading it, I am satisfied with that.


John Horne Blackmore: I am anxious that everyone should read it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. Is it the pleasure of the house to have the document put on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Gillis: The memorandum reads as
follows:
United Mine Workers of America District 26
P.O. Box 110-Glace Bay, Nova Scotia
October 16, 1951
Dear Sirs and Brothers:
At the last convention of district 26, United Mine Workers of America, a resolution was presented protesting the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The delegates, at that convention, voted unanimously to refer said resolution back to the district executive board for further study and comment.
After a thorough review of the St. Lawrence seaway and power development project, your district executive board is of the opinion that this project, created with or without the help of the United States, will have a most adverse effect on the economy of the maritime provinces particularly in the realm of steel and coal. This opinion is based on the following facts:
1.	That the construction of this project will tend to create a further concentration of industry in the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario. This will come about in two ways. First any new industry that is contemplated will be lured to the central provinces by the promise of cheap hydro electric power and cheap water transport and secondly existing industry in the maritimes would be induced to move to the central provinces to take advantage of these two facts.
2.	That markets for maritime coal in Ontario and Quebec would be seriously jeopardized in the resulting change over from steam to hydro electric power.
3.	The further concentration of industry in Ontario and Quebec would seriously curtail railway traffic in the maritimes thus reducing an important local market for maritime coal.

4.	The construction of the seaway could conceivably create a dumping market in central Canada for United States and overseas coal.
5.	The huge deposits of iron ore in Labrador would be enabled to reach the central markets very cheaply thus curtailing the expansion of the steel industry in the maritime provinces.
6.	There is the possibility of an ever-increasing flow of oil transported by ships under registry of other nations, delivering petroleum products into the heart of the Canadian industrial region to displace maritime mined coal.
7.	The taxpayers in the maritime provinces would be obliged to pay their just share of this project thus helping to expedite the process of committing industrial suicide in the maritime provinces.
Your district executive board therefore takes the stand that we are unalterably opposed to the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project because of the dire effects which the project will have on our economy in the maritime provinces.
Fraternally yours,
On behalf of the District Executive Board
Freeman Jenkins, President. Stephen Dolhanty, Acting Secretary-Treasurer.
This document represents the opinion of
13,000	mine workers living in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. As I said before, there are no ifs, ands and buts. Through the research department they have studied the project and set forth seven very definite reasons for thinking it will militate against them. Before I conclude I may summarize those reasons.
I have another document from one of the local organizations of the mine workers, and local 4529 of the united mine workers is unalterably opposed to the scheme. There are 1,600 members of that local, and they are concerned about this. Another section in Pictou county, local 8672 of the united mine workers, forwards a resolution to the same effect. The development of the navigation project will militate against them in marketing their coal in central Canada, particularly in Montreal. From another local union of the mineworkers I have a lengthy letter; it is from the secretary of the mechanics' local. I may say there are about 800 members in this local union. They are machinists and mechanics who are employed in the coal industry. They are unalterably opposed to this project. I want to emphasize again that this is not guesswork. These people have studied this matter. I want to clear up the point that in my opposition to this seaway project I am stating my own policy. I have never spoken in this house on any subject without being certain of what people thought about it. I figure it is my job to do that. The mine workers as an organized body have studied this question over the years. On a previous occasion I said in this house that twenty-six years ago I wrote a resolution

opposing this particular project. There is therefore no guesswork about the matter on the part of that mine workers' union.
The Minister of Transport worked extremely hard this evening, in my opinion, and he did a good job for the average person who will read Hansard and also for the average person in this house who has never studied this problem. But as far as I am concerned I want to say that he did not offer one new argument tonight, or one that I had not heard many years ago; and I was not impressed. I am not questioning his honesty. He is the last man in the world whose honesty I would question. I should like to be on his side; I hate to oppose him. But in this particular instance he just proved this to me. First, he proved that the resolution we are discussing to set up an authority is merely window dressing for the resolution that is still on the order paper and that is to make provision for the development of the power project for the province of Ontario. It will be noted that the resolution on the order paper does not say anything about developing power in the province of Quebec. It is a straight Ontario-federal government agreement for the development of power in this province. I believe the resolution we are now discussing-and we are discussing it first-is merely window dressing for the purpose of putting through that agreement to develop that power in the province of Ontario.
In support of what I have just said, I am reminded of a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to the press in September. In a press interview he stated that the seaway might be delayed for three years because they had run into some political snags. In my opinion the political snags they ran into were in the province of Quebec. If Quebec is reluctant to go ahead with this project at the present time, in my opinion the judgment of those in that province who may be doubtful of it is absolutely correct.
I am not objecting to this project, nor are the people in the maritime provinces to whom I have talked and who have submitted documents to me objecting to it, because of the good it will do to any other part of the country. We are not objecting to it on that ground. If Ontario needs power and the federal government wants to develop that power, we are not objecting because some benefit is going to accrue to this province. But we are objecting to the whole project, the power project and the navigation channel because of the injury it is going to do to the part of the country from which I come. That is why we are objecting to it, and we are objecting to it on legitimate grounds.
St. Lawrence Waterway
We are objecting to it first on the ground that it will militate against the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia. That industry at the present time is threatened from three different directions. First, it has the competition of oil. Second, it is now threatened by a pipeline development to bring natural gas from the province of Alberta into Montreal and Quebec city, the main market for Nova Scotia coal. In addition, if this channel is opened up it means that the Americans have a straight, cheap water route into that main Montreal market where about half the total production of Nova Scotia is marketed at the present time. Today we cannot compete in that Montreal market, even with our water route, without substantial subsidies from the federal government. We are assisted in that market now despite the fact that the Americans have a rail route in there and we have a water route. Despite that fact we still cannot compete. If the development visualized by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), by the leader of this group and by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon) takes place, it means that we are going to provide a water route into that market, with the result that whatever market we have left is going to be pushed away from the Nova Scotia product. I want to point out seriously to the members of this house that the coal industry is the basic industry of Nova Scotia. If it is crippled it means that province goes down with it. That is what we fear, and we have legitimate fears unless we have reasonable guarantees from the government that what we anticipate is not going to take place. But in this world of free enterprise, competition, and get what you can for yourself, the logical thing to happen is that the Americans will be able to undersell us in that market.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member permit a question before he goes into another aspect of the matter?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Has he given some thought to the nature of the guarantees that he feels should be given?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Would he care to mention those guarantees now, or does he propose to do so later on?


Clarence Gillis: In summing up I will mention
the guarantees. I have in my hand a file containing representations from some influential bodies; for example, from the city of Sydney, where the basic steel industry on that coast is located. The committee for industrial expansion in Nova Scotia, headed
1596	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway by the Nova Scotia federation of labour, presented a brief to the cabinet of Nova Scotia on April 20 of this year, urging the provincial government to get in touch with the federal government for the purpose of expanding the basic steel industry in Sydney, Nova Scotia, the logical place for them to expand. They see the threat to the coal industry. They realize that there is maybe a necessary shift in their basic industry, and that it should be based on steel, in view of the threat of natural gas and oil competition and so forth from other sources. I am sure the province of Nova Scotia must have got in touch with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and must have brought to the attention of the department all the facts and figures on steel expansion in that area. I am not going to go into it, but I have reams of it. We calculated that there would be some steel expansion on that coast. I am afraid that the navigation end of this project is designed to do just the reverse; and I do not say that idly, because I hold in my hand a clipping of a speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who generally knows what he is talking about. It was made in the United States, and in urging this project he did not leave any doubt in anyone's mind as to why he was anxious about it. An extract from that speech reads as follows:
The St. Lawrence seaway must be built. Without it the steel industry now on the great lakes would have to migrate to the Atlantic coast.
That would be an awful thing. But that is his reason for it, and all of the arguments advanced this afternoon by the minister merely confirm my opinion on that point. He pointed out the great iron ore deposits in Ungava and Labrador. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) stressed the future of this country, and rightly so, based on steel. He said that was basic to our whole economy and our whole defence effort. That is true, but there was no suggestion from the government that any expansion at all should occur where it naturally should take place, where the Lord placed the iron ore, or as close to that spot as could be utilized. There was no suggestion of that at all. While the leader of the opposition made a reference to the necessity of some such program, at the same time he backs the channel that prevents it. I say that with some assurance, because the minister convinced me of that all through his speech today. According to him there were the two musts: First of all power is necessary. I am not doubting that. Perhaps it is. But if it is necessary, that is because of too great concentration of industry in Ontario. That is


the reason for it. Making the iron ore available was said to be a must. To whom are we making the iron ore available?


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I would not want the record to leave the impression, which I think his words unintentionally conveyed, that I had merely made a passing reference to the possibility of steel being produced in the maritimes.' On the contrary, I said positively that it should be and that there were great advantages in seeing that it was done there; that I thought at a time when we were planning to create facilities for moving the ore elsewhere we should by contractual arrangements assure the increased production of steel in the maritime provinces as well.


Clarence Gillis: I listened to the leader of the opposition very carefully tonight. I agree that he did make those suggestions, but he did not suggest for one minute that he was going to oppose the navigation channel which would prevent the hopes he had expressed from coming to fruition. That is the point I am making.
I am a Canadian, and I believe in developing Canadian resources for Canadians. I do not believe there should be any doubt in anybody's mind about that. Let us have a look at who is going to use this iron ore if that navigation channel is deepened. First of all, who owns that ore at the present time? Have the Canadian government or the Newfoundland government any control over that iron ore? I say they have not. That iron ore has been leased for the next ten years by the Newfoundland government and the Quebec government. A franchise was passed in this house permitting the development of railroad lines up through northern Quebec, the development of hotels and bus lines and all that kind of thing for the next ten years. The Americans have the franchise to operate the iron ore deposits in Ungava. Someone will say they are leased to the Hollinger Exploration Company. That is correct, but that is a front company in Canada for United States interests. Actually the people who control it, through their financing, are the M. A. Hanna Company of the United States. That is number one. They have the franchise now. Well, we are not satisfied to give them a franchise to exploit that ore for the next ten years. We are now going to dig the channel all by ourselves to make it more available to them. That certainly does not mean the development of any steel on the Atlantic seaboard as far as I am concerned, and I like to be fair to the minister and I try to be charitable in my thinking. I am convinced, anil the people whom I represent

here-and I have gone to the trouble to provoke their thoughts and get them to restudy this matter in the light of 1951 conditions- are convinced that the channel end of that development ends any possible chance of expansion on the Atlantic seaboard. The Americans own it; we are going to go it alone in order to make it more available to them.
This afternoon when the minister was talking he said it was going to benefit every section of Canada. It was like Santa Claus's bag; there was something for everybody. I listened to him very carefully and hopefully when he was making his statement to see what was in that stocking for the maritime provinces. He started at Newfoundland, and rightly so. He said Newfoundland will get a great stimulus in employment. The Newfoundlander is going to be permitted to go underground, to dig the iron ore and to ship it up the Canadian-paid-for channel to the steel mills at Duluth or somewhere along the lakes to be fabricated and what have you by United States interests. That is something for him to look forward to. He is going to be the hewer of wood and the drawer of water. He is getting a lot out of that. Well, I will say this to the credit of the present Newfoundland premier. He at least has said that he is going to develop a basic steel industry in Newfoundland. He is going to do it with European capital. It is on paper yet. I hope it is not a dream. I hope he will do that, but it means he is going to have a lot of opposition. He is running into some pretty big stuff when he bucks the North American steel interests. He has said he is going to do it, so the Newfoundlander at least has this to look forward to. There may be a chance of him getting out from underground, from lifting heavy iron ore, into a steel plant that the premier of Newfoundland is going to establish.


Mr. Stick:: But not from Labrador ore.


Clarence Gillis: The minister promised that the Newfoundlander will have more work, but that product which means so much to the future of the world is going to be taken up to the head of the lakes further to concentrate the steel industry and perpetuate it there for all time. Then he came to Quebec. There are potential power possibilities there, but I think Quebec is hesitating at this time. I believe Quebec expected, when they gave the franchise to the Hollinger Exploration Company, being the M. A. Hanna Company of the United States, a great development in the north country. There was no talk about a seaway at that time. I think they are smart enough to see now that we are not going to get all these railroads built and
St. Lawrence Waterway these bus lines and hotels and all that made available in northern Quebec. They are just going to develop the mines in there, take the ore down to the coast and drag that iron up past Montreal, by-passing it altogether, and take all the wealth that belongs to northern Quebec or Ungava and Labrador and centralize it in the United States. If I were in Quebec I would be doing a lot of thinking about that project, despite the advice of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon).
So much for Quebec. There was something in the stocking for the prairies, of course. I have been in this house for approximately twelve years, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to that grain debate two or three times every year, and I have not yet once heard any complaint in the house that there has been a lack of ships. The great complaint was about box cars: "The grain is lying out; we need box cars from the C.P.R. We want the transport commission to see that we get box cars." But there did not seem to be any shortage of ships.
I hope those who anticipate that this project may do something to stimulate the movement of wheat from the prairies will not be misled. I would say this also, that if that is true, then we wasted a lot of money in developing the port of Churchill. I was led to believe that was the logical and natural outlet for western grain, that it was the closest point to Europe. But that has all gone by the board. The arguments I heard in favour of Churchill were perhaps no more valid than the ones we were hearing in favour of this seaway, so far as doing something to help in the shipment of wheat is concerned. It is just an "if" and a "but" and a hope; there is nothing concrete.
There is before the house now a motion to get more box cars. One hon. member actually proposed that we should nationalize the C.P.R. in order to get more box cars to move wheat; but I have never heard any talk about any shortage of ships.
I hope that if this goes through they realize their hope, because it is only a hope. There is nothing concrete to support any contention that this project is going to benefit anybody or anything, except the power project in Ontario. British Columbia-


Mr. Green:: He was pretty weak on that
one.


Clarence Gillis: They just got the go-by. When the project is fully developed British Columbia will be away back in behind the mountains, pushed farther and farther toward the Pacific coast. So British Columbia had better line up with me, and give a little opposition to this.

St. Lawrence Waterway
I suggest again to the minister that he pay some attention to the maritime provinces. Over the years the Halifax Chronicle-Herald has done a good research job on practically every project affecting the maritimes. I hold in my hand some up to date editorials from that newspaper concerning this project. One of them, dated Hay 7, 1951, bears the caption "It Gets Beyond My Understanding." I am sure no one will accuse the editorial staff of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of being just oppositionists or wild-eyed radicals or straight maritimers. They have always taken a pretty broad view of everything. I' am not going to read these editorials, but their contention is this: Where would the materials come from? Provided the authority the minister is setting up were instructed to go ahead and to develop this power project in Ontario, provided it was told to get busy and put the seaway through, where would that body go to find the materials and the labour and all those things necessary for such a project?
The editorial is very thoughtful on that point. These are practical things. It is all right to be a visionary and to give long orations. I could do that, too, if I wanted to. But when we get down to concrete cases and have to find the men, the materials and the steel, it is a different matter. And as an hon. member points out to me there is also the matter of finding the concrete. Where is all this to be found? These are practical questions. This is not pie in the sky. A report on the great lakes-St. Lawrence deep waterways issued in June of 1949 sets out some pretty definite figures on this question. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, again in its own practical way, directs our thoughts along other lines, that of shipbuilding. In years gone by the maritime provinces were looked upon as the logical place for shipbuilding, and shipbuilding was recognized as one of their industries. Even if this channel were built the maritimes would continue to be the logical place for shipbuilding. But that is not to continue. This afternoon the minister elaborated upon how

the building of this project would stimulate the shipbuilding industry, and said that ships would be built at inland ports. No mention was made of any place east of Montreal. It was all going to be concentrated along the great lakes. Of course I do not blame the minister for that, because it is pretty generally recognized in Ottawa that Canada ends at Montreal. Survey beyond that? Oh, no one ever thinks about doing that. The minister's remarks this afternoon with respect to shipbuilding simply reflected the attitude of the ivory tower, the Ottawa approach: Canada ends at Montreal.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-and, poor fellow, he is getting a beating these days-


Howard Charles Green: He is in trouble.


Clarence Gillis: According to this editorial from the Halifax Chronicle-Heraid of December 3 -and this is right up to date-he was selling the St. Lawrence seaway in central Canada, on the ground that that is where the shipbuilding would be concentrated. Well, I am glad they are going to have water this time. The last time they built ships at inland ports they had to carry them by sections on box cars or flat cars to find the water in which to float them. At least they are a little more up to date this time. It appears that the shipbuilding will be done at the inland ports, and the minister confirmed that this afternoon.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will proceed with business in the following order: First, debate on the address; second, the two resolutions concerning the St. Lawrence seaway; third, the resolution concerning the amendment to the Dominion Elections Act, and then, fourth, we will try to pass the resolution to amend the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 5, 1951